man12fg5 Posted March 5, 2012 Report Posted March 5, 2012 Version 3.1.2 stable (build 26821) makes the torrents are not suitable for use in BitSpirit, if size of file is more 200 MB!!!
man12fg5 Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Posted March 5, 2012 Eror is "Bad torrent file"!Nothing to work! Bitspirit is last version - 3.6.0.550
DreadWingKnight Posted March 5, 2012 Report Posted March 5, 2012 Well, that's a useless troubleshooting message (from them).If it's what I think it is, they need to fix their bencode parser.
Firon Posted March 5, 2012 Report Posted March 5, 2012 The torrent's valid. Report it to the BitSpirit devs.
man12fg5 Posted March 6, 2012 Author Report Posted March 6, 2012 BitSpirit v3.6.0.550 is created 1 year agoGood Torrent for example torrent1 (filesize 63 MB)Bad Torrent torrent2 (filesize more 200 MB)Nothing to work, absolutely I found not valid torrent with size of file less 200 MB for example torrent3
man12fg5 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Report Posted March 7, 2012 BitSpirit bug, not uTorrent.It is bad and for uTorrent
DreadWingKnight Posted March 7, 2012 Report Posted March 7, 2012 I've tested the torrents with a metadata verifier. The problem isn't with the torrents nor is it with uTorrent.
rafi Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 Actually, I will welcome an explanation on some of the basics here...I did not understand the relation between: A. The file having properly formatted metadata (keys/parameters structure-values)and - B. The content itself (keys names, keys order)Since we are concerned here with compatibility issues (mostly with other clients and, less - with trackers), isn't adding new key(s) and changing of the order of existing keys is a possible cause for other clients to just not "understand" those and fail in parsing such files ? Are all those specific new keys listed in any standard?Was the new format for media torrents checked with all the existing clients *before* it was published ? Or was there any public publication (with examples) of the new media torrents' format so that other clients can check it up themselves?What am I missing here?
DreadWingKnight Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 The fact that new keys whose purpose aren't understood by a client should NOT be choked on when encountered.isn't adding new key(s) and changing of the order of existing keys is a possible cause for other clients to just not "understand" those and fail in parsing such files ?I already raged over this mindset on another thread, it's wrong behavior for a client to choke on torrents with keys it doesn't understand the purpose for.
rafi Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 I already raged over this mindset on another threadSorry, I've probably missed it... it's wrong behavior for a client to choke...Maybe so. Still, it is not a matter of being right of wrong. We all know that bugs (/wrong-designs) do exist. I think the *way* you introduce a new feature into the "wild" public-community - is important too. There is no doubt about the fact that this feature should be interoperable with others (maybe, as you say, only by a way of skipping/ignoring it). You must give others heads-up and a chance to test it. So, being right/wrong is for the courts... I am for being wise about things, and give others (and thus - yourself) a reasonable way to integrate/test with it.Being also thorough, and also testing it with as many clients (& trackers) as you can, can also be not such a bad idea.Just my 2 cents...
DreadWingKnight Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=113702http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=106862
rafi Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 Thanks for the links/info! I still think that the way BT devs have *handled* this change - was not wise. No change log, no examples, no advanced notification. Just a surprise to everyone in the community... I do remember this issue with negative numbers. This is a good example of how a slightly modified design, could have saved you some headache and a 100 forum posts. OK, those are fully supported in the spec, but hey, you see people/trackers/clients have issues with it - why not just use a separate 0/1 flag-key instead of a negative number? ...Have a nice weekend
Firon Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 Because sometimes, when there's a flagrant spec violation, you just need to tell people to fix their shit.Otherwise, you'll never make any progress.
rafi Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 Sure, but still, there I believe there was a better way to go about it. I wonder how people were suppose to "fix their shit" having no heads-up what they are up against in the first place, no change-log entry, no examples, nada ... (or maybe they inform all the clients' devs in some hidden forum that I am not aware of... )nm, what's done is done...
magao Posted March 9, 2012 Report Posted March 9, 2012 The point is that they never should have needed to "fix their shit". They were lazy when implementing the spec, and it's now turned around and bitten them on the arse.The uTorrent devs were perfectly justified in using the spec as written. The only thing that should be done now is for users to put pressure on the devs of the broken parsers to implement the spec as written.However, I do agree that changelog entries to the effect of "negative numbers are used for AAA and new metadata keys BBB and CCC are now being used for DDD" would be a useful thing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.