I really enjoy using Chrome's URL bar because it remembers commonly-visited sites and often suggests a good completion based on what I've typed and/or visited before. So, for example, I can type t in the URL bar and Chrome will automatically fill it in with twitter.com, or I can type maps and Chrome will fill in the .google.com. This gives me the convenience of data-driven domain name shortcuts without having to maintain an explicit list.
What I'm wondering, though, is how Chrome determines that an old shortcut should be replaced with a new one. For example, if I visit twitter.com often, then that becomes the completion when I type t. But if I then start visiting twilio.com often enough, then, after some time, Chrome will start to fill that in as the default completion for t. What I can't figure out is how or when that transition takes place. It also seems that there are (at least) two cases involved : one for domain names, and another for path strings, because if I visit a certain full URL often, and then want to get to the root of the same domain, I end up having to type the entire domain name out to get Chrome to ignore the full-URL completion.
If I had to guess, I'd imagine that Chrome stores the things that I type in the URL bar in a trie whose values are the number of times that a particular string has been typed (and/or visited ?). Then I'd imagine it has some sort of exponential decay model for the "counts" in the trie. But this is just a guess. Does anyone know how this updating process happens ?
Well, I ended up finding some answers by having a look at the Chromium source code ; I'd imagine that Chrome itself uses this code without too much modification.
When you type something into the search/URL bar (which is apparently called the "Omnibox"), Chrome starts looking for suggestions and completions that match what you've typed. To do this, there are several "providers" registered with the browser, each of which knows how to make a particular type of suggestion. The URL history provider is one of these.
The querying process is pretty cool, actually. It all happens asynchronously, with particular attention paid to which activity happens in which thread (the main thread being especially important not to block). When the providers find suggestions, they call back to the omnibox, which appears to merge and sort things before updating the UI widget.
History provider
It turns out that URLs in Chrome are stored in at least one, and probably two, sqlite databases (one is on disk, and the second, which I know less about, seems to be in memory).
This comment at the top of HistoryURLProvider explains the lookup process, complete with multithreaded ASCII art !
Sqlite lookup
Basically, typing in the omnibox causes sqlite to run this SQL query for looking up URLs by prefix. The suggestions are ordered by the number of visits to the URL, as well as by the number of times that a URL has been typed.
Interestingly, this is not a trie ! The lookup is indeed based on prefix, but the scoring of those lookups does not appear to be aggregated by prefix, like I'd imagined.
I had a little less success in determining how the scores in the database are updated. This part of the code updates a URL after a visit, but I haven't yet run across where the counts are decremented (if at all ?).
Updating suggestions
What I think is happening regarding the updating of suggestions -- and this is still just a guess right now -- is that the in-memory sqlite database essentially has priority over the on-disk DB, and then whenever Chrome restarts or otherwise flushes the contents of the in-memory DB to disk, the visit and typed counts for each URL get updated at that time. Again, just a guess, but I'll keep looking as I get time.
The code is really nice to read through, actually. I definitely recommend it if you have similar questions about Chrome.
Related
I have a couple of questions about images, since I don't know what is better for my purposes. Also this might me helpful for other people because I couldn't find this info in other questions.
Well, although this is an asp.net core 2.0 application the first question could is a general question about images.
QUESTION 1
When I have images that I want to load everytime I usually add a query string so the explorers like Chrome or IE don't get the chached image they have. In my case I add the time ticks to the url of the image, this way it loads the image everytime since the query string is always different:
filePath += "?" + DateTime.Now.Ticks;
But in my case I have a panel where the administrators of the page can change a lot of images. The problem, when they change those images if there is no query string the users are going to see an old image they have stored in their explorer cache.
The question is, if I add the query string to many images is not bad for the performance? is there any other solution for this?
QUESTION 2
I also have photos of the users and other images stored in the site. When I saw a image all the visitors of the site can see the path (for example: www.site.com/user_files/user_001/photo001.jpg).
Is there a way to hide those paths or transform in another thing is asp.net core 2.0?
Thanks a lot.
Using something like ticks will get the job done, but in a very naive way. You're going to put more stress both on your server and the clients, since effectively the image will have to be refetched every single time, regardless of whether it has changed or not. If you will have any mobile users, the situation is far worse for them, as they'll be forced to redownload all these resources over and over, usually over limited (and costly) data plans.
A far better approach is to use a cryptographic digest, often called a "hash". Essentially, the same data encrypted in the same way will return the same hash. It's usually used to detect tampering with transmitted data, but since each message will (generally) have a unique hash and that hash will be the same each time for the same piece of data, you can also use this to generate a cache-busting query string that only changes when the image data itself changes.
Now, to be thorough, there's technically no guarantee that two messages won't result in the same hash. Instances where that occurs are called "collisions" and they can happen. However, if you use a sufficiently complex algorithm like SHA256, the likelihood of collisions is greatly reduced. Regardless, it should not be a real issue for concern for this particular use case of cache-busting images.
Simplistically, to create the hash, you simply do something like:
string hash;
using (var sha256 = SHA256.Create())
{
hash = Convert.ToBase64String(sha256.ComputeHash(imageBytes));
}
The value of hash then will be something like z1JZs/EwmDGW97RuXtRDjlt277kH+11EEBHtkbVsUhE=.
However, ASP.NET Core has an ImageTagHelper built-in that will handle this for you. Essentially, you just need to do:
<img src="/path/to/image.jpg" asp-append-version="true" />
As for your second question, about hiding or obfuscating the image path, that's not strictly possible, but can be worked around. The URL you use to reference the image uniquely identifies that resource. If you change it in any way, it's effectively not the same resource any more, and thus, would not locate the actual image you wanted to display. So, in a strict sense, no, you cannot change the URL. However, you can proxy the request through a different URL, effectively obfuscating the URL for the original image.
Simply, you'd just have an action on some controller that takes an image path (as part of the query string), loads that from the filesystem and returns it as a response. Care should be taken limit the scope of files that can be returned like this, both based on directory (only allow your image directory, for example, not C:\Windows\, etc.) and file type (only allow images to be returned, not random text files, config files, etc.). That portion is straight-forward enough, and you can find many examples online if you need them.
Ultimately, this doesn't really solve anything, though, because now your image path is simply in the query string instead. However, now that you've set this part up, you can encrypt that part of the query string using the Data Protection API. There's some basic getting started information available in the docs. Essentially, you're just going to encrypt the image path when creating the URL, and then in your action that returns the image, you decrypt the path first before running the rest of the code. For the encryption part, you can create a tag helper to do this for you without having to have a ton of logic in your views.
I need to fetch a list of all the files in a user's box account, such that the list of files can then be displayed in a table view (iOS).
I have successfully implemented this by recursively using /folders/{folder id}/items on all the folder's in my user's box.
However, while this works, it's kind of dirty, seeing as how a request is made for each of the users's folders, which could be quite a large number.
Is there any way to get a list of all the files (it's no issue if folders are included, I can ignore those manually) available?
I tried implementing this using search, but I couldn't identify a value for the query parameter that returned everything.
Any help would be appreciated.
Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.
What you are looking for (recursive call through a Box account) is not available. We have enterprise customers will bajillions of files and millions of folders. Recursively asking for everything would take too long.
What we generally recommend is that you ask for as little as you can, and that you use multiple threads and anticipate what you'll need just a little bit, so that you can deliver a high-performance user-interface to your end-users.
For example ?fields=item_collection is expensive to retrieve, and can add a lot to a paylaod. It can double, or 10x the time that it takes to get back a payload from the Box API. Most UI's don't need to show all the items inside every folder. So they are better off asking for ?fields=.
You can make your application responsive to the user if you make the smallest possible call. Of course there is a balance. Mobile networks have high latency, and sometimes that next API call to show some extra thing is slow. But for a folder tree, you can get high performance by retrieving only the current level, displaying that, and then starting to fetch one-level down while the user is looking at the first level.
Same goes for displaying thumbnails. If a user drills into a folder and starts looking at thumbnails for pictures, there's a good chance they'll want to see other thumbnails in that same folder. Your app should anticipate that, and start to pull one or two extras down in the background. Yes, it means more API calls, but your users will give your app a higher rating for being fast.
For a major school project I am implementing a real-time collaborative editor. For a little background, basically what this means is that two(or more) users can type into a document at the same time, and their changes are automatically propagated to one another (similar to Etherpad).
Now my problem is as follows:
I want to be able to detect what changes a user carried out onto an HTML textfield. They could:
Insert a character
Delete a character
Paste a string of characters
Cut a string of characters
I want to be able to detect which of these changes happened and then notify other clients similar to "insert character 'c' at position 2" etc.
Anyway I was hoping to get some advice on how I would go about implementing the detection of these changes?
My first attempt was to consider the carot position before and after a change occurred, but this failed miserably.
For my second attempt I was thinking about doing a diff on the entire contents of the textfields old and new value. Am I missing anything obvious with this solution? Is there something simpler?
It is a really hard work make this working today, for several reasons, but
maybe you will need to restrict only to some browsers. read: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XUL/Attribute/oninput the alternative to "oninput" is listen to all input events (keyboard, mouse, dragdrop) I suggest to use "oninput"
html is not perfect... even html5. input and textareas supports only single-range
selections. you can solve this using designmode/contenteditable instead of
textareas/textfield
detecting offsets of what changed is a hard work: read
-- https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Document_Object_Model_%28DOM%29/window.getSelection
-- http://www.quirksmode.org/dom/range_intro.html -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535869%28v=VS.85%29.aspx -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535872%28v=VS.85%29.aspx
you may need a "diff" algorithm written in javascript! http://ejohn.org/projects/javascript-diff-algorithm/
one personal note: detecting words, characters changes may be totally non-sense and not useful, detect instead paragraphs changes, or in case of an excel-like worksheet, the single cell
I hope this helps
feel free to correct my English!
My pseudocode/written out response would be (if I understand your question exactly) to use jQuery to detect keyup events and then save the input to the server via ajax, then also take the response and post it back to the input. This isn't very efficient, but basically the idea is that you're constantly posting and checking what else has been posted. If you want to see what someone else is doing in real time, you can ping the server every second or so and update with the response.
All of this of course can be optimized, but it still is kind of taxing for a server. You could also see if you can implement Google Topeka Wave for your project, or get in touch with Google Topeka to see how they do it :)
Today my co-worker noticed that when adding a decimal place to a progress indicator leads to the impression that the program is running faster than without. (i.e. instead of 1,2,3... it shows 1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, ...) I checked it and I was surprised that I got the same impression even though I knew it was faked.
That makes me wonder: What other things are there to create the impression of a fast application?
Of course the best way is to actually make the application faster, but from an algorithmic point of view often there's not much you can do. Additionally I think making a user less frustrated is a good thing, even though it is more or less a psychologic trick.
This effect can be very dramatic: doing relatively large amounts of work to give users a correct and often updating status of progress can of course slow down the actual running time of the application (screen updates, progress display needed calculations, etc) while still giving the user the feeling it takes less time.
Some of the things you could do in GUIs:
make sure your application remains responsive (resizing the forms remains possible, perhaps give a cancel button for the operation?) while background processing is occurring
be very consistent in showing status messages/hourglass cursors throughout the application
if you have something updating during an operation, make sure it updates often (like the almost ridiculous showing of filenames and registry keys during an install), or make sure there's an option to make it do this for users that like this behavior
Present some intermediate, interesting results first. "We've found 2,359 zetuyls matching your request, we're just calculating their future value".
I've seen transport reservation systems do that sort of thing quite nicely.
Showing details (such as the names of files being copied in an installation process) can often make things seem like they're going faster because there's constant, noticeable activity (as opposed to a slowly-creeping progress bar).
If your algorithm is such that it generates a list of results, and you have some way of displaying results as they're generated (as opposed to all at once at the end), do so - the sooner the user has something else to look at besides a spinner, the better.
Allow the user to do something else, while your application is processing data or waiting for a result. In application-scope you could allow to do some refinement of a search query or collect information for preparing next steps. Or just present some other "work" necessary to do or just some hints, documentation, statistics, entertainment..
Use one of those animated progress bars which look like they are doing something even when they aren't progressing. Also, as peSHIr said - print each filename that you copy and update it really fast - you could even fake it by cycling through a large string array N times a second.
I've read somewhere that if the process seems to be speeding up, it seems to be faster than when it's progressing at a steady pace. I can't find the reference right now, but it should be simple to implement.
(10 minutes later...)
A further look down Google lane unearthed the following references:
http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/hacking-memory/
http://blogs.msdn.com/time/
Here is an article about "Expressing time in your UI" and user perception of time. I do not know if it is exactly what you expect as an answer, but it is definitely worth the read.
Add a thread sleep at critical points. With each passing version, reduce the delay.
On a wiki-style website, what can I do to prevent or mitigate write-write conflicts while still allowing the site to run quickly and keeping the site easy to use?
The problem I foresee is this:
User A begins editing a file
User B begins editing the file
User A finishes editing the file
User B finishes editing the file, accidentally overwriting all of User A's edits
Here were some approaches I came up with:
Have some sort of check-out / check-in / locking system (although I don't know how to prevent people from keeping a file checked out "too long", and I don't want users to be frustrated by not being allowed to make an edit)
Have some sort of diff system that shows an other changes made when a user commits their changes and allows some sort of merge (but I'm worried this will hard to create and would make the site "too hard" to use)
Notify users of concurrent edits while they are making their changes (some sort of AJAX?)
Any other ways to go at this? Any examples of sites that implement this well?
Remember the version number (or ID) of the last change. Then read the entry before writing it and compare if this version is still the same.
In case of a conflict inform the user who was trying to write the entry which was changed in the meantime. Support him with a diff.
Most wikis do it this way. MediaWiki, Usemod, etc.
Three-way merging: The first thing to point out is that most concurrent edits, particularly on longer documents, are to different sections of the text. As a result, by noting which revision Users A and B acquired, we can do a three-way merge, as detailed by Bill Ritcher of Guiffy Software. A three-way merge can identify where the edits have been made from the original, and unless they clash it can silently merge both edits into a new article. Ideally, at this point carry out the merge and show User B the new document so that she can choose to further revise it.
Collision resolution:
This leaves you with the scenario when both editors have edited the same section. In this case, merge everything else and offer the text of the three versions to User B - that is, include the original - with either User A's version in the textbox or User B's. That choice depends on whether you think the default should be to accept the latest (the user just clicks Save to retain their version) or force the editor to edit twice to get their changes in (they have to re-apply their changes to editor A's version of the section).
Using three-way merging like this avoids lock-outs, which are very difficult to handle well on the web (how long do you let them have the lock?), and the aggravating 'you might want to look again' scenario, which only works well for forum-style responses. It also retains the post-respond style of the web.
If you want to Ajax it up a bit, dynamically 3-way merge User A's version into User B's version while they are editing it, and notify them. Now that would be impressive.
In Mediawiki, the server accepts the first change, and then when the second edit is saved a conflicts page comes up, and then the second person merges the two changes together. See Wikipedia: Help:Edit Conflicts
Using a locking mechanism will probably be the easiest to implement. Each article could have a lock field associated with it and a lock time. If the lock time exceeded some set value you'd consider the lock to be invalid and remove it when checking out the article for edit. You could also keep track of open locks and remove them on session close. You'd also need to implement some concurrency control in the database (autogenerated timestamps, perhaps) so that you could make sure that you are checking in an update to the version that you checked out, just in case two people were able to edit the article at the same time. Only the one with the correct version would be able successfully check in an edit.
You might also be able to find a difference engine that you could just use to construct differences, though displaying them in a wiki editor may be problematic -- actually displaying the differences is probably harder than constructing the diff. You'd rely on the versioning system to detect when you needed to reject an edit and perform a diff.
In Gmail, if we are writing a reply to a mail and someone else sends a reply while we are still typing it, a popup appears indicating that there is a new update and the update itself appears as another post without a page reload. This approach would suit your needs and if you can use Ajax to show the exact post with a link to diff of what was just updated while User B is still busy typing his entry that would be great.
As Ravi (and others) have said, you could use an AJAX approach and inform the user when another change is in progress. When an edit is submitted, just indicate the textual differences and let the second user work out how to merge the two versions.
However, I'd like to add on with something new you could try in addition to that: Open a chat dialog between the editors while they're doing their edits. You could use something like embedded Gabbly for that, for instance.
The best conflict resolution is direct dialog, I say.
Your problem (lost update) is solved best using Optimistic Concurrency Control.
One implementation is to add a version column in each editable entity of the system. On user edit you load the row and display the html form on the user. A hidden field gives the version, let's say 3. The update query needs to look something like:
update articles set ..., version=4 where id=14 and version=3;
If rows returned is 0 then someone has already updated article 14. All you need to do then is how to deal with the situation. Some common solutions:
last commit wins
first commit wins
merge conflicting updates
let the user decide
Instead of an incrementing version int/long you can use a timestamp but it's not suggested because:
retrieving the current time from the JVM isn't necessarily safe in a clustered environment, where nodes may not be time synchronized.
(quote from Java Persistence with Hibernate)
Some more info at the hibernate documentation.
At my office, we have a policy that all data tables contain 4 fields:
CreatedBy
CreatedDate
LastUpdateBy
LastUpdateDate
That way there is a nice audit trail on who has done what to the records, at least most recently.
But most importantly, it becomes easy enough to compare the LastUpdateDate of the current or edited record on the screen (requires you to store it on the page, in a cookie, whatever, with the value in the database. If the values don't match, you can decide what to do from there.