Cache fles not longer in htm format
self
I have used many versions of Opera over the years and have made it a
practice to archive the htm files that are collected in my cache.
This enables me to later search using a tool like Copernic through every
screen that I have seen to recover what I recall seeing several months
ago. I had been doing that for years and life was good.
My latest version of Opera, v. 9.50 beta saves the cache files without
any file suffix, like opr2HUAZ, instead of opr2HUAZ.htm. In explorer it
calls the file type "file" whereas it used to call it "opera web
document and display the .htm suffix.
Because of this Copernic is unable to read and index these files which
are really htm files for me and I am unable to therefore search in my
cache.
[Note when I copy another file into the cache it does display its own
.htm, so it is not a preference in the explorer viewer that is causing
my problem.]
Thank you.
--
Pat
Peter Krefting
> My latest version of Opera, v. 9.50 beta saves the cache files without
> any file suffix, like opr2HUAZ, instead of opr2HUAZ.htm.
9.50 and later (the current release is 9.51, btw), does store the cache
files without any file suffixes. This as a measure to avoid problems with
Windows letting you double-click and execute files directly from the
cache, and with the default text editor on Mac OS that would try to render
HTML pages instead of viewing the source code. The files themselves are in
the same format as they have ever been.
You might want to try a cache visualiser tools, such as the good old
“O4FE” <URL:http://users.westelcom.com/jsegur/#ofe> which can help you
tell which files in the cache correspond to which URLs.
--
\\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
self
understand and never had any problems about "Windows double-clicking" or
"the default text editor" so that is no plus for me at all.
But the inability to continue to have my cache archived and indexed by
Copernic or Google is a real problem.
Your suggestion that I "might want to try a cache visualiser tool"
misses the point, there is no human way to look through tens of
thousands of cache files by hand individually hoping to find what I am
looking for.
I hope that Opera reconsiders this disaster and returns to leaving the
file suffixs on.
Meanwhile, what is the latest version that does not have this disaster
built in, and wwhere can I download it?
Thank you.
Pat
In article <op.uezpg...@hammas.td.tandbergdata.com>,
pe...@softwolves.pp.se says...
> self <m...@mine123.com>:
>
> > My latest version of Opera, v. 9.50 beta saves the cache files without
> > any file suffix, like opr2HUAZ, instead of opr2HUAZ.htm.
>
> 9.50 and later (the current release is 9.51, btw), does store the cache
> files without any file suffixes. This as a measure to avoid problems with
> Windows letting you double-click and execute files directly from the
> cache, and with the default text editor on Mac OS that would try to render
> HTML pages instead of viewing the source code. The files themselves are in
> the same format as they have ever been.
>
> You might want to try a cache visualiser tools, such as the good old
> â O4FEâ ? <URL:http://users.westelcom.com/jsegur/#ofe> which can help you
> tell which files in the cache correspond to which URLs.
>
>
--
Pat
Eik
> But the inability to continue to have my cache archived and indexed by
> Copernic or Google is a real problem.
The fact that most text editors rely on file extensions to choose the
syntax highlighting is another problem. When I view source in Opera 9.5,
or click the link to view an external Javascript file from the error
console, it just appears as black plain text.
> there is no human way to look through tens of
> thousands of cache files by hand individually hoping to find what I am
> looking for.
Ironically, they key reason for the change (as well as prevening some AV
programs detecting HTML 'viruses' - web pages with snippets of code known
to trigger bugs and crash MSIE - and causing problems) now appears to be
that leaving out extension allows Opera to tidy up the cache after a crash
more speedily.
There was a post somewhere, where an Opera developer said that if the
cache is set to 2GB then it can take a while for Opera to start up again
after the crash because it first has to find all the known cache files and
then delete all the files in the cache folder which weren't listed in the
cache index by the time of the crash. I'm sure this is all part of looking
ahead to offline applications and heavier cache use in future versions,
but it doesn't help me viewing source in todays version.
> I hope that Opera reconsiders this disaster and returns to leaving the
> file suffixs on.
I think I also read that they did attempt to make it optional but gave up
because it made things too complicated. So short of a full U-turn, I can't
see them changing this.
> Meanwhile, what is the latest version that does not have this disaster
> built in, and wwhere can I download it?
Opera 9.27:
http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?opsys=Windows&lng=en&ver=9.27&platform=Windows&local=y
That link is for Windows. For other operating systems and other
recent(ish) versions, navigate from here:
http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?custom=yes
Peter Krefting
> But the inability to continue to have my cache archived and indexed by
> Copernic or Google is a real problem.
Well, in my opinion, if the indexing software relies on the file extension
to identify the file format, then it is the indexing software that needs
to be changed. An HTML file is an HTML file, no matter whether it has a
".html" extension or not.
Also remember that if Opera receives the document compressed (HTTP
supports sending compressed data), it will be stored compressed in the
cache, something the indexing software also needs to take into account.
> Your suggestion that I "might want to try a cache visualiser tool"
> misses the point, there is no human way to look through tens of
> thousands of cache files by hand individually hoping to find what I am
> looking for.
True.
But the cache index file is there, and it has had the same format since
Opera 4.0. That means that the authors of the indexing software you are
using have had eight years to implement support for reading the cache
index file, and not having to rely on the actual naming of the files in
the cache (I would assume that it already does that for the Internet
Explorer cache).
With 9.50 you also have the option of using Opera's built-in search
facility to do full-text search of all pages visited by Opera. It is
triggered by entering text in the address field, or by opening the special
page opera:historysearch. That only searches what you have seen in Opera,
though.
> I hope that Opera reconsiders this disaster and returns to leaving the
> file suffixs on.
I doubt that will happen. But you never know...
John H Meyers
>> But the inability to continue to have my cache archived and indexed by
>> Copernic or Google is a real problem.
> Well, in my opinion, if the indexing software relies on the file extension
> to identify the file format, then it is the indexing software that needs
> to be changed.
And apparently so does Windows need to be re-written :)
Is there any difference in efficiency between immediately identifying
file types by name alone, vs. having to scan the file content instead?
How does indexing software discern plain text from a "command/batch" file,
or from a dozen other programming languages, whose extensions
would immediately identify them?
Can anyone distinguish a ".bat" file from a ".cmd" file, by content?
[In general, no.]
How about encrypted files having no "header bytes"
or formally structured "packets" -- can you tell
which kind of encrypted file it is?
(if so, the cipher being used is a failure).
Etc.
--
self
Peter Krefting wrote:
"Well, in my opinion, if the indexing software relies on the file
extension to identify the file format, then it is the indexing software
that needs to be changed.
"But the cache index file is there, and it has had the same format since
Opera 4.0. That means that the authors of the indexing software you are
using have had eight years to implement support for reading the cache
index file, and not having to rely on the actual naming of the files in
the cache
Pat responds:
The files in the cache do not have "the same format since Opera 4.0,
they now lack the suffixes.
Why should the authors of the indexing software you are
using have had eight years to implement support for reading the cache
index file, and not having to rely on the actual naming of the files in
the cache ?
I doubt very much if indexing software giants like Google and Copernic
plan to follow any aberrant change that Opera might decide to institute
such as dropping the file suffixs. The indexing software lets me select
by suffix which files I want to index, I choose htm or html, and I have
no interest in indexing other types like compressed files.
Pat
In article <op.ue1kc...@hammas.td.tandbergdata.com>,
pe...@softwolves.pp.se says...
--
Pat
Peter Krefting
> The files in the cache do not have "the same format since Opera 4.0,
> they now lack the suffixes.
The naming of the actual cache files has changed, but the index file is
the same format (and with the same name), so any tools that can read the
4.0 index can read the 9.50 index file just fine.
> Why should the authors of the indexing software you are using have had
> eight years to implement support for reading the cache index file, and
> not having to rely on the actual naming of the files in the cache ?
If they use the index file to index the cache, they would get the benefit
of being able to tie the cache files to their corresponding URLs.
John H Meyers
> The naming of the actual cache files has changed,
> but the index file is the same format (and with the same name)
How come you omitted mentioning the name?
What's the name, and where is it?
I have been browsing all over,
then immediately did a windows search of all files in my profile,
sorted these by reverse modification time,
and find only very many cache files with latest mod time,
so where is any file that's up to date and matching what's in my cache?
The other day, as I mentioned, I had 600 very recent files
in my actual cache folder of the current session,
while opera:cache tab (refreshed) was listing only one,
so not even the browser itself
seems to have any idea what's really there.
While using 9.27, I can view all images in my cache.
Very simple -- start Windows Pic&Fax viewer, start slide show --
absolutely impossible without complete file names.
The idea that anything can be nearly as sensible as just leaving
things alone is like saying that we're going to encrypt every file
on disk, but if you want to do an embedded text search,
why, you can just write yourself a decryption program
and attach it as a front end to Windows' "find" DLL,
which was previously doing a great job to begin with,
before the bright idea to encrypt everything.
One can understand it for Safari, which actually has
a single database, rather than separate files
(though, by the way, it leaves recent URLs all over that file,
even if you "reset safari" completely, so much for "privacy"),
but when there still happen to be separate files in this product,
which were all doing fine before this bright idea came along,
the idea is very hard to find good cause for.
How about a manufacturer removes the starter from your car,
because after all, it's a dangerous and powerful motor,
which it has just been realized could hurt you,
so they've removed it for your safety,
and instead they give you a hand crank,
and say you can use that instead?
Same sort of thing has just been done with cache,
and you're right there, saying "you can go get a crank,"
but I can't even find the crank.
--
Matthew Winn
<pe...@softwolves.pp.se> wrote:
> self <m...@mine123.com>:
>
> > But the inability to continue to have my cache archived and indexed by
> > Copernic or Google is a real problem.
>
> Well, in my opinion, if the indexing software relies on the file extension
> to identify the file format, then it is the indexing software that needs
> to be changed. An HTML file is an HTML file, no matter whether it has a
> ".html" extension or not.
But the application shouldn't have to rely on content-sniffing to
work out the type of the data. There's a damned good reason why many
Internet protocols include a content-type header or some variant
thereof: they need an out-of-band way of indicating what the data
represents. A file can't have a content-type header, so the file
extension is used instead.
Some binary data formats have in-band content type information, but
for text files that just doesn't work. Content-sniffing is far too
unreliable, and the reason why MIME and HTTP and many other standards
avoid it is because it's a horrendously stupid and broken idea. It's
also incredibly hypocritical of Opera, having spent so much time in
the past (rightly) berating IE for content-sniffing, to recommend it
now in an attempt to deride objections to an unpopular change.
> But the cache index file is there, and it has had the same format since
> Opera 4.0. That means that the authors of the indexing software you are
> using have had eight years to implement support for reading the cache
> index file, and not having to rely on the actual naming of the files in
> the cache (I would assume that it already does that for the Internet
> Explorer cache).
I tried that, and found that when Opera is running the cache index
doesn't always seem to be up to date. I wanted to trap some cached
data from a site I was visiting, and although the cache files were
present there was no mention of them in the index. Infrequent writes
to the cache index give better performance than syncing on every
change, but it does impair the use of the index for accessing the
cache.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
Ed Jay
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:35:30 -0500, Peter Krefting wrote:
>
>> The naming of the actual cache files has changed,
>> but the index file is the same format (and with the same name)
>
>How come you omitted mentioning the name?
>
>What's the name, and where is it?
>
Is 'dcache4.url' which is located in your cache4 folder what you're looking
for?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)
Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life.
http://www.breastthermography.info
John H Meyers
JHM>> What's the [cache index file] name, and where is it?
> Is 'dcache4.url' which is located in your cache4 folder
> what you're looking for?
Well, I have been browsing Google news, which is packed with images,
and when I send my "dcache4.url" to a hex dump program,
its length is only 20 bytes, and its content is:
00001000000200000001000240000531374A4D4F ............@..17JMO
This appears to indicate only
the currently latest cache file "serial number"
(a suffix appended to "opr" to form file names);
is it supposed to be more than this?
Also, as far as Windows is concerned,
a ".url" file type is expected to mean something else entirely,
so this itself is not a well chosen file name.
I also appreciate Matthew Winn's thorough and well-written
analysis and commentary, including the fact that
there is no up-to-date index anyway,
apparently because it is retained in memory
without being frequently written to disk
(as is apparent when looking for files modified
anywhere near as recently as recent cache items),
which again precludes any possibility
that an independent program could access a correct index
(for which I'm still looking, if anyone wants to clue me in :)
Thanks again.
--
Ed Jay
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:50:05 -0500, Ed Jay kindly replied:
>
>JHM>> What's the [cache index file] name, and where is it?
>
>> Is 'dcache4.url' which is located in your cache4 folder
>> what you're looking for?
>
>Well, I have been browsing Google news, which is packed with images,
>and when I send my "dcache4.url" to a hex dump program,
>its length is only 20 bytes, and its content is:
>
>00001000000200000001000240000531374A4D4F ............@..17JMO
>
>This appears to indicate only
>the currently latest cache file "serial number"
>(a suffix appended to "opr" to form file names);
>is it supposed to be more than this?
I have 1,777 objects occupying 15 Mb in my cache folder. My dcache4.url file
is about 515 Kb long. It seems to contain everything one would need to
develop a cache 'explorer.' Filenames, including extensions, URL's, etc.,
etc.
David W. Hodgins
> I have 1,777 objects occupying 15 Mb in my cache folder. My dcache4.url file
> is about 515 Kb long. It seems to contain everything one would need to
> develop a cache 'explorer.' Filenames, including extensions, URL's, etc.,
> etc.
I have no idea if it still works, but windows users may want to try
O4FE from http://users.westelcom.com/jsegur/
Regards, Dave Hodgins
--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
John H Meyers
> I have 1,777 objects occupying 15 Mb in my cache folder.
> My dcache4.url file is about 515 Kb long.
> It seems to contain everything one would need to develop a cache 'explorer.'
> Filenames, including extensions, URL's, etc., etc.
Thanks for replying with your helpful observation.
Through some Google searching, I did find:
"Opera File Formats"
http://www.opera.com/docs/fileformats/
which includes "dcache4.url" and its format.
But at the same time,
my "cache4" directory currently contains 1385 objects,
totaling 16.1 MB, according to Windows,
and my opera:cache tab does currently occupy many full screens,
but _my_ "dcache4.url" file remains the same 20 bytes all the while,
"signifying nothing," as Shakespeare had Hamlet say :)
> It seems to contain everything one would need
> to develop a cache 'explorer.'
Unless someone convinces my copy of Opera
to start writing more into that disk file than occurs here,
no such program could accomplish anything on this computer.
Is it all fixed in 9.5, and just completely busted in my 9.27 ?
It is also, of course, rather better to be able
to point other programs (e.g. "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer")
directly at the cache -- in fact, even if I knew a file name
which did not have an extension, and knew that it contained an image,
how could I get that Windows application
to open even a single one of those individual files,
no less "browse" through all of them, as it was designed to do?
(there is not even a manual "File > Open" in that application!)
Manually search for one file at a time, then drag-and-drop, huh?
Well, that's like a reversion back to a "hand crank"
for a modern "electric car starter," as I mentioned earlier.
All the millions of dollars spent by Microsoft
to develop "Windows integration" for applications,
once very well built upon by Opera,
is now being tossed down the drain,
by Opera now discarding all its once very intelligent features
(including in "Transfers," according to what I've read here).
Perhaps it's a result of the money-earning "mobile" market
replacing any original value of a "desktop" market,
other than as an advertising vehicle for the former
(although the "desktop" version becomes a poorer advertisement
at the same time, as some of its original values are eviscerated).
--
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Hamlet, Act V, Scene V
http://www.bartleby.com/46/4/55.html
.
David W. Hodgins
> But at the same time,
> my "cache4" directory currently contains 1385 objects,
> totaling 16.1 MB, according to Windows,
> and my opera:cache tab does currently occupy many full screens,
> but _my_ "dcache4.url" file remains the same 20 bytes all the while,
Sorry, I have to ask. Are you looking in the same directory shown for
the Cache in the Paths section, of Help/About Opera?
John H Meyers
> I have no idea if it still works, but windows users may want to try
> O4FE from http://users.westelcom.com/jsegur/
Thank you for that reminder!
I just downloaded and started it up,
then selected "Open cache"
Well, the first thing to notice is,
that it can't even navigate to my "Application Data" folder,
no less from there into my Opera profile.
So one has to "unhide" the "Application Data" folder
(against Windows' best judgment) to get any further.
By the way, is there any way to set O4FE to always start
in the right folder to begin with,
to avoid having to manually navigate there every time?
After following the "8.3" filenames down to my "cache4" folder,
O4FE does see "dcache4.url"
And it does then list the cache files!
HOWEVER, is it not looking directly at the _folder_
to find these files, because no other Windows application I can find
can see anything but 20 bytes of content in "dcache4.url,"
so how does O4FE leap over that problem?
(does this issue in any manner relate to my disk being
NTFS file system, with possible "alternate data streams"?)
As someone else already noted, I also see some files
which O4FE indicates as "Type GZ" (compressed),
which can't be opened, but (a) Windows can't open these
directly from cache either, and (b) most "GZ" files
in my current cache are either text-based or GIFs,
while all the rest are apparently uncompressed.
When I double-click a cached image file in O4FE,
it does open in my "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer,"
but this is still in 9.27 here, where extensions are still present,
so the crucial question is: did these images open with the
correct program only because they still have an "associated" extension,
or does O4FE know how to find the right program,
even without the presence of the extension?
I guess I'll have to wait for a 9.5 user (on XP or Vista) to try O4FE,
to get the answer to this suspenseful "cliff-hanger" question :)
--
John H Meyers
JHM:
>> But at the same time,
>> my "cache4" directory currently contains 1385 objects,
>> totaling 16.1 MB, according to Windows,
>> and my opera:cache tab does currently occupy many full screens,
>> but _my_ "dcache4.url" file remains the same 20 bytes all the while
DWH:
> Sorry, I have to ask. Are you looking in the same directory
> shown for the Cache in the Paths section, of Help/About Opera?
I can understand why you'd ask :)
Well, my "opera:about" tab says (directly copying and pasting):
Cache
C:\Documents and Settings\myname\Application Data\Opera\Opera\profile\cache4\
While my Windows Explorer's "Address" field says
(also directly copying and pasting):
C:\Documents and Settings\myname\Application Data\Opera\Opera\profile\cache4
(as well as being populated with currently time-stamped files,
in the only instance of Opera ever yet used on this [new] computer).
So yes, I think these are the same.
"Properties" of "dcache4" in that folder says it's 20 bytes,
but of course Windows is showing that as a "shortcut"
(and hiding its extension, even though not hiding other files' extensions),
so I'll try opening a "command window" (cmd.exe) and doing a DIR command:
07/31/2008 12:17 AM 20 dcache4.url
1 File(s) 20 bytes
Hmm... now I'll try "command.com" and then a DIR command:
07/31/2008 12:22 AM 20 dcache4.url
1 File(s) 20 bytes
It could be that Windows is up to some tricks,
hiding the real file, but I just can't seem to figure out
how to find out if that's the case (how did Ed Jay get his info?)
I'll report back later if I gain any further insight.
Thanks again.
--
John H Meyers
[while trying O4FE on Opera 9.27 on Windows XP Pro]
> I'll report back later if I gain any further insight.
No insights, but just these observations:
I tried each of the O4FE browsers;
all seem to be reasonably happy to show something,
except "global history" (global.dat)
which doesn't seem to like the current file format
(changed from O4?)
The last-navigated-to file paths are saved in "ofe.ini"
(thankfully :)
so now it "knows" where to re-start each time.
For cache, my columns "MIME" and "Visited" are always blank;
"Scheme" always shows "?:" and
"Site" always shows "?"
Is this as expected, or is something missing?
I'll look tommorow for results from someone with 9.5 :)
Thanks to Josef W. Segur for the fine O4FE tool:
http://users.westelcom.com/jsegur/
Good night!
--
John H Meyers
> [while trying O4FE on Opera 9.27 on Windows XP Pro]
> The last-navigated-to file paths are saved in "ofe.ini"
> (thankfully :)
> so now it "knows" where to re-start each time.
This also allows the "hidden" attribute to be restored
to the "Application Data" profile folder
(I found it originally necessary to remove it,
as it seemed that I could not otherwise "navigate" to my Opera profile).
--
Ed Jay
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:03:13 -0500, Ed Jay kindly added:
>
>> I have 1,777 objects occupying 15 Mb in my cache folder.
>> My dcache4.url file is about 515 Kb long.
>> It seems to contain everything one would need to develop a cache 'explorer.'
>> Filenames, including extensions, URL's, etc., etc.
>
>Thanks for replying with your helpful observation.
>
>Through some Google searching, I did find:
>
>"Opera File Formats"
>http://www.opera.com/docs/fileformats/
>which includes "dcache4.url" and its format.
>
>But at the same time,
>my "cache4" directory currently contains 1385 objects,
>totaling 16.1 MB, according to Windows,
>and my opera:cache tab does currently occupy many full screens,
>but _my_ "dcache4.url" file remains the same 20 bytes all the while,
>"signifying nothing," as Shakespeare had Hamlet say :)
Indeed, it signifies something...aberrant behavior. Out, out, brief bug!
>
>> It seems to contain everything one would need
>> to develop a cache 'explorer.'
>
>Unless someone convinces my copy of Opera
>to start writing more into that disk file than occurs here,
>no such program could accomplish anything on this computer.
Is the file, by chance, read-only?
>
>Is it all fixed in 9.5, and just completely busted in my 9.27 ?
>
I'm using 9.52 Build 10093, and it seems to be doing what I expect it to.
>It is also, of course, rather better to be able
>to point other programs (e.g. "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer")
>directly at the cache -- in fact, even if I knew a file name
>which did not have an extension, and knew that it contained an image,
>how could I get that Windows application
>to open even a single one of those individual files,
>no less "browse" through all of them, as it was designed to do?
>(there is not even a manual "File > Open" in that application!)
>
>Manually search for one file at a time, then drag-and-drop, huh?
>Well, that's like a reversion back to a "hand crank"
>for a modern "electric car starter," as I mentioned earlier.
>
It's a start. O4FE is the back end of a future explorer-style widget. You
can from the O4FE site <http://users.westelcom.com/jsegur/> that the raw
data is all there. Someone with a driving interest to manipulate Opera's
cache files will step up to the plate and write the interface.
Peter Krefting
> How come you omitted mentioning the name?
> What's the name, and where is it?
It’s called “dcache4.url”, and is located inside the cache directory.
John H Meyers
> Is the file [dcache4.url], by chance, read-only?
No, and both the "time stamp" and apparent content
(of which the only visible thing is the current
last cache file name part that follows "opr")
keep getting updated, while the reported file length,
as Windows seems to see it,
stays at a rock-solid steady 20 bytes (see image link below).
So, a simple forehead-slapping explanation, though desirable,
doesn't seem to be forthcoming :)
> I'm using 9.52 Build 10093, and it seems to be doing what I expect it to.
I'm curious as to what OS, version, and type of file system you're using
(e.g. FAT vs NTFS in Windows).
There are some devious Windows-based gimmicks which could conceivably
be at work here, but I can't figure out what -- another completely
unrelated application which I use (a calculator emulator)
uses some "memory mapped" Windows files, for example,
in which case their time stamps don't even get updated
when modifications occur, completely contrary to normal expectations.
JHM>> Manually search for one file at a time, then drag-and-drop, huh?
> It's a start. O4FE is the back end of a future explorer-style widget.
> You can [see] from the O4FE site <http://users.westelcom.com/jsegur/>
> that the raw data is all there.
If you mean in the single screenshot on that page, it's a "cookies" view
http://users.westelcom.com/jsegur/COOKSCR7.GIF
and doesn't seem to show what's expected to be found for cache.
Here are my screen shots (may be short-lived):
O4FE viewing my cache (Opera 9.27, still with extensions):
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip01cq9.jpg
Windows Explorer listing my cache:
http://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip02jl3.jpg
A hex editor displaying my dcache4.url file:
http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip03sp9.jpg
(the reason for Firefox being seen running, by the way,
is that my Opera 9.27 won't upload to Image Shack :)
> Someone with a driving interest to manipulate Opera's cache files
> will step up to the plate and write the interface.
Will it enable "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" to browse
all by itself or play a "slide show," or will it enable
Windows Explorer to show a "filmstrip" all by itself,
and from there open any program I want, for any file?
Windows Filmstrip view:
http://windows.about.com/od/basictutorials/ss/view_picts_3.htm
http://windows.about.com/od/basictutorials/ss/view_picts_2.htm
http://malektips.com/xpwex0034.html
"Anything is better than nothing," it may be said,
but it will still be more like having been
"bombed back to the Stone Age," IMHO :)
Thanks again for your kind help.
--
John H Meyers
> It’s called "dcache4.url", and is located inside the cache directory.
Thanks for kindly responding;
I've been able to explore further now,
and have posted more "noise" about the general issues,
as I guess will have been seen :)
--
Ed Jay
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:13:55 -0500, Ed Jay wrote:
>
>> I'm using 9.52 Build 10093, and it seems to be doing what I expect it to.
>
>I'm curious as to what OS, version, and type of file system you're using
>(e.g. FAT vs NTFS in Windows).
WXP-Pro/SP1 using NTFS.
>
>> Someone with a driving interest to manipulate Opera's cache files
>> will step up to the plate and write the interface.
>
>Will it enable "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" to browse
>all by itself or play a "slide show," or will it enable
>Windows Explorer to show a "filmstrip" all by itself,
>and from there open any program I want, for any file?
>
I don't know what it will do...I'm speculating on what may (or may not)
occur. That said, we can plainly see from your screen shots (cache view)
that the info is available in 'raw form,' so getting to where you'd like to
be is only a coding issue.
David W. Hodgins
> "Properties" of "dcache4" in that folder says it's 20 bytes,
> but of course Windows is showing that as a "shortcut"
Check the properties of the shortcut, to see what the target is.
David W. Hodgins
> I'm curious as to what OS, version, and type of file system you're using
> (e.g. FAT vs NTFS in Windows).
Just fyi. Some testing here shows that opera only seems to update the
dcache4.url file, when it's otherwise idle.
John H Meyers
JHM:
>> "Properties" of "dcache4" in that folder says it's 20 bytes,
>> but of course Windows is showing that as a "shortcut"
DWH:
> Check the properties of the shortcut, to see what the target is.
Simply ending a file name with ".url" doesn't really make that file
a Windows "shortcut"; it only starts to confuse Windows Explorer
about what icon to display, causes it to suppress the ".url"
when listing file names (even when "hide extensions for known file types"
is turned off), and so on (but cmd.exe with "dir" shows the full name).
The "properties" of my file "dcache4.url" were shown in my screen shot:
http://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip02jl3.jpg
(no "Target" -- Windows Explorer is not _that_ confused :)
The 20 bytes of content that Windows keeps reporting
are also shown in the screen shot of a hex editor
(this editor normally detects "real" shortcuts,
but treats this as an ordinary file,
as far as I can determine):
http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip03sp9.jpg
Does this match "The Cache File Formats"
on http://www.opera.com/docs/fileformats/ ?
Quoting that page
"the Disk cache index file... also contains a single record
with the id 0x40, which contains a 5 character string
used to find the next free cache file number (oprXXXXX)"
Well, we see that string in the last few bytes of the 20 bytes displayed,
so it would appear that I'm displaying the actual file content, no?
But nothing more can seem to be found.
Copying "dcache4.url" either via Windows Explorer
or via cmd.exe, e.g.: copy dcache4.url dcache4.txt
simply copies the same 20 bytes.
Examining "real" Windows shortcuts of any type
will, not surprisingly, show a different structure.
I am still wondering whether O4FE is seeing all that it's supposed to,
given its various "blank" columns in this screen shot:
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip01cq9.jpg
Surely there are others who could repeat the experiment of using O4FE,
and might see whether they can find any more data in "dcache4.url"
(under Windows, preferably XP), and if so, what's there?
"A picture is worth a thousand words" :)
Thanks for all the help (and challenges :) that have been offered.
--
John H Meyers
JHM:
>> Will it enable "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" to browse
>> all by itself or play a "slide show," or will it enable
>> Windows Explorer to show a "filmstrip" all by itself,
>> and from there open any program I want, for any file?
EJ:
> I don't know what it will do..
> I'm speculating on what may (or may not) occur.
Come on, we know that the answers (to the rhetorical questions above)
are a definite "No," unless a whole lot of the Windows OS
is rewritten to accompany it.
> That said, we can plainly see from your screen shots (cache view)
Of 9.27, where file extensions still exist,
not of a future without them.
> that the info is available in 'raw form,'
> so getting to where you'd like to be
Retaining everything as in 9.27,
with full Windows integration,
which in large part depends on file extensions.
> is only a coding issue.
That's where, IMHO, we sail straight into "The Twilight Zone" :)
But thanks for coming along part of the way, and best wishes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone
http://www.scifi.com/twilightzone/
--
Don KIrkman
<uqv094pboo73isms7...@4ax.com>:
>John H Meyers wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:35:30 -0500, Peter Krefting wrote:
>>> The naming of the actual cache files has changed,
>>> but the index file is the same format (and with the same name)
>>How come you omitted mentioning the name?
>>What's the name, and where is it?
>Is 'dcache4.url' which is located in your cache4 folder what you're looking
>for?
John will have to answer for himself, but I have nothing called
dcache4.url but I have two copies of a shortcut called dcache4 (no
extension), one in cache4/ and the other in cache4/revocation/; the
properties for each are circular, pointing back to themselves in their
respective folders, and double clicking gets an error message that the
target is invalid.
BTW, what is the "Revocation" folder all about as part of the cache
apparatus? 9.51, build 10081
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
John H Meyers
> I have nothing called dcache4.url
> but I have two copies of a shortcut called dcache4 (no extension),
> one in cache4/ and the other in cache4/revocation/
If under Windows:
That's actually dcache4.url -- Windows Explorer
doesn't show the ".url" part (not even if you un-check
"hide extensions for known file types" in "Folder Options"),
by convention, but the full name will be shown by a DIR command
in a "command window"
> the properties for each are circular,
> pointing back to themselves in their respective folders
There is probably no actual "pointing";
does it look like my "properties" in this screen shot?
http://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip02jl3.jpg
> and double clicking gets an error message
> that the target is invalid.
Although naming a file so as to end in ".url"
makes Windows try to interpret it as an "internet shortcut,"
the content of the file is nothing of the sort,
so it's natural that Windows would point that out
as an "error" -- this file is not meant to be "opened"
by anything other than Opera,
so trying to make Windows "open" it is futile.
> BTW, what is the "Revocation" folder all about
> as part of the cache apparatus? 9.51, build 10081
That will have to be answered by someone
who has adopted and is nursing this "preemie,"
born a little too soon to make it without intensive care, IMHO :)
I'm happy to see that 9.52 is coming, and will restore
Windows integration to the "Transfer" menu
(or so the notice says at Opera).
--
Ed Jay
John H Meyers
> you can look at my dcache4.url at <http://www.edbjay.com/dcache.url>
Thank you for whatever is supposed to be there;
Opera can't seem to currently display it, saying this:
"The requested URL /dcache.url was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered
while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."
Firefox and Safari do the same.
If you are trying to post a file, can you zip it?
Or an image?
I'm sure it will be revealing; thanks again.
--
Ed Jay
John H Meyers
> <http://www.edbjay.com/dcache.zip>
I'm still getting a "not found" for http://www.edbjay.com/dcache.zip
Can you email it to me? (change dummy domain to miu dot edu)
Thanks.
--
Ed Jay
>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:35:27 -0500, Ed Jay wrote:
>
>> <http://www.edbjay.com/dcache.zip>
>
>I'm still getting a "not found" for http://www.edbjay.com/dcache.zip
My fault...I apologize. <http://www.edbjay.com/dcache4.zip>
>
>Can you email it to me? (change dummy domain to miu dot edu)
>
Will do.
Odd H. Sandvik
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:09:28 +0100, Eik <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ironically, they key reason for the change (as well as prevening some AV
>>programs detecting HTML 'viruses' - web pages with snippets of code known
>>to trigger bugs and crash MSIE - and causing problems) now appears to be
>>that leaving out extension allows Opera to tidy up the cache after a crash
>>more speedily.
>>
>>There was a post somewhere, where an Opera developer said that if the
>>cache is set to 2GB then it can take a while for Opera to start up again
>>after the crash because it first has to find all the known cache files and
>>then delete all the files in the cache folder which weren't listed in the
>>cache index by the time of the crash. I'm sure this is all part of looking
>>ahead to offline applications and heavier cache use in future versions,
>>but it doesn't help me viewing source in todays version.
>
> The correct solution to this is not to make it more difficult for users,
> but to make Opera less prone to crashing, and to use a more durable
> indexing mechanism. Both of those solutions would make for a better user
> experience, yet Opera has chosen the route that provides a worse user
> experience.
>
> Typical.
Actually, up until 9.50, Opera was only getting better and better, IMHO.
The things they changed, could easily be changed back by fiddling a bit
with the config. But it seems we've turned a corner for the worse with
9.5x. They've made Opera less usable with no option for changing it.
3 things that annoy me:
The cache file suffixes are gone.
Default document save type defaults to "web archive".
Opera doesn't remember where it was on a page after using
the back button (a bug, but not fixed in 9.51).
I saddens me to see that a browser I've loved to use since
v3.x something, and even paid for back in the day before it
became free, now is being destroyed in the name of "security"
or whatever lame excuse they choose to use. I wonder what
stupid decision they'll make next that will finally drive
away their (up until now) biggest supporters. So far I've
adviced family, friends and others to use Opera, but the
way this is going I don't see myself doing that any more.
As long as there is no benefit of using Opera over Firefox,
the choice is clear. FF has a much larger userbase, is open
source, and has a great extension system.
Opera is proprietary, has a miniscule userbase, and the
benefits over FF, well they disappeared with 9.5x.
--
Odd H. Sandvik
Don KIrkman
<op.ue76b...@miu.edu>:
>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:54:08 -0500, Don KIrkman wrote:
>> I have nothing called dcache4.url
>> but I have two copies of a shortcut called dcache4 (no extension),
>> one in cache4/ and the other in cache4/revocation/
>If under Windows:
>That's actually dcache4.url -- Windows Explorer
>doesn't show the ".url" part (not even if you un-check
>"hide extensions for known file types" in "Folder Options"),
>by convention, but the full name will be shown by a DIR command
>in a "command window"
I nearly always browse with Opera, and was this time as well.
>> the properties for each are circular,
>> pointing back to themselves in their respective folders
>
>There is probably no actual "pointing";
>does it look like my "properties" in this screen shot?
>http://img120.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip02jl3.jpg
Except for the path, this looks like the "properties" I got. My
dcache4 has about 500kb according to the properties dialog.
>> and double clicking gets an error message
>> that the target is invalid.
>Although naming a file so as to end in ".url"
>makes Windows try to interpret it as an "internet shortcut,"
>the content of the file is nothing of the sort,
>so it's natural that Windows would point that out
>as an "error" -- this file is not meant to be "opened"
>by anything other than Opera,
>so trying to make Windows "open" it is futile.
Maybe I got into this thread late, but what is the purpose of that
file if it can't be opened?
>> BTW, what is the "Revocation" folder all about
>> as part of the cache apparatus? 9.51, build 10081
>That will have to be answered by someone
>who has adopted and is nursing this "preemie,"
>born a little too soon to make it without intensive care, IMHO :)
I sort of guessed it might be another of those little-known things
that seem to fall my way. :-)
>I'm happy to see that 9.52 is coming, and will restore
>Windows integration to the "Transfer" menu
>(or so the notice says at Opera).
Well, so far 9.51 has been about the most disturbing version I've
tried, and I was among the ones who bought the program way back, so
any improvements will be welcome, even if they're regressions.
Thanks for the careful explanation. I'm a better user than I am an
understander about technicals.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
John H Meyers
>>> and double clicking gets an error message
>>> that the target is invalid.
> Maybe I got into this thread late, but what is the purpose
> of [dcache4.url] if it can't be opened?
Internal index file for Opera to use itself,
but with a name chosen poorly for a product running under Windows
(although "extension conflict" is nothing new,
often between different external products, less often
between a third-party product and Windows itself).
One can open any file with a user-chosen program, however,
either by starting the desired program and using a built-in
"open" dialog to select the file (noticeably unavailable
with "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer"), by "dragging"
the file to an already-open application window or "shortcut"
(which tends to work, most of the time), or by "Open with" (in XP),
which "remembers" and adds to a list for later re-use.
--
John H Meyers
O4FE viewing my cache (Opera 9.27):
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip01cq9.jpg
O4FE viewing my cache (Opera 9.51):
http://img170.imageshack.us/my.php?image=clip04kx1.jpg
Comparison:
With 9.27:
Files have extensions, "Date" and "Type," no MIME etc.
Clicking the files opens them with "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer," etc.
With 9.51:
Files have NO extensions, NO dates, NO type, but have MIME + Scheme + Site
Clicking the files does NOTHING.
End of story -- uninstalling 9.51
--
box45
John H Meyers
I meant that double-clicking cache files within O4FE's own displayed list
was able to open them with 9.27, but not with 9.51
(dates and file type are also missing in 9.51,
although MIME type and URL are shown instead,
at least with my cache and my options).
Thus O4FE does not seem a useful tool to accomplish anything for 9.51,
as was a theoretical suggestion previously made.
--