OpenGuides-Dev July 2008

openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org

3 participants
4 discussions

Could maps be centred and scaled
by Andrew Black - lists 27 Aug '08

27 Aug '08

I have a suggestion concerning maps (eg map of all points in a category). I would like to get the maps to be centred and scaled. For example, in the following, all the points are off the displayed map. http://london.randomness.org.uk/wiki.cgi?action=index;format=map;index_type… The following is a quick demo to play with http://www2.black1.org.uk/~andrew/map/exp_bounds.html Click on a few points, hit "Reposition map" then repeat. In practice - you might want to make it configurable for the user - apply a minimum zoom (eg my demo produces a very large scale map if you give a single point) What do people think. Andrew

2 5

After the pubmeet
by Dominic Hargreaves 03 Jul '08

03 Jul '08

Thanks to those that came to the pub - it was a fun afternoon and good to talk to people and get them involved in OpenGuides/meet new people etc. I've dumped my scribblings onto the wiki page: http://dev.openguides.org/wiki/Anniversary and implemented the Akismet plugin idea (after returning home with a bunch of spam moderations to attend to...) http://dev.openguides.org/browser/sites/oxford.openguides.org/lib/OpenGuide… Very rough but something I'd like to clean up and include into the distribution as a way of making the spam problem Someone Else's Problem. Cheers, Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)

3 6

Re: [OGDev] [OGL] london.openguides.org back up / list moves
by Dominic Hargreaves 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

[Cc back to openguides-dev since this has a wider scope] On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 02:15:47PM +0100, Kake L Pugh wrote: > On Tue 01 Jul 2008, Dominic Hargreaves <dom(a)earth.li> wrote: > > [...] essentially the point was made that there is still a nasty fork > > between RGL and london.openguides.org [...] I therefore decided it > > was best to get the latter back up as soon as possible, if nothing > > else so the content could be taken from there and put on RGL. > > There seems to be a bit of a misconception here, which is bothering > me. RGL was never intended as a fork of - or a replacement for - the > Open Guide to London. > > It's simply a website run by me and Bob, for the pleasure and > convenience of us and our friends, which happens to run on the > OpenGuides software. It's not any kind of democracy, and I would be > quite unhappy if anyone attempted to turn it into The Official London > Open Guide Wot Anyone Can Have A Say In. Okay. I misunderstood then. I was basing my remarks on Ivor's unhappiness with not being able to access the content he'd previously put into OGL; that is probably conflating things somewhat. > I mention this not out of pettiness, but because I think it's > important for the OpenGuides project that the OpenGuides team aren't > seen as asserting any rights or expectations over the content or > ownership of the things people choose to do with our software. Fair enough. Although we do have some duty/interest as a project in promoting certain qualities (for example, quality of data, openness, accessible/suitable for all-comers) in the guides we promote. When OGL was down, it was referring visitors to RGL, and RGL is also promoted on the project home page. Given your above comments, would it be better to remove the link from the project home page? (I'm really not asking this in an incendiary fashion, I really do want to know people's opinions). I am also concerned about the possible confusion resulting from offering people two London guides, without explaining how they differ. > Re adding OGL content to RGL - can I ask that nobody decide to be > "helpful" and start doing this, please. RGL is a separate thing to > OGL and is run and structured in a very different way. I think it would be useful, to avoid confusion, to explain a bit more about this. Maybe a page on RGL itself (apologies if this is already there and I missed it). Clearly there is a balance to be struck between independence and the ability for people to use the software how they like (which I strongly support) and providing a unified resource for people to get information about their locality in (see also my dreams about having a central portal site). We should aim to support both these goals. Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)

2 1

OpenGuides (in)efficiency
by Kake L Pugh 02 Jul '08

02 Jul '08

Summary: I think I know why OpenGuides has a habit of occasionally taking over servers. If you've experienced problems with occasional ridiculously high load averages, take a look at the Action paragraph below. Action: In the short term, I suggest that anyone who's been having trouble with OpenGuides taking over their machines should comment the per-user RSS feed links out of userstats.tt - copy it to your custom_templates directory and either delete everything between [% IF username %] and the next [% END %] statement (inclusive), or change [% IF username %] to [% IF username AND 0 %] - both will have the same effect. Details: I suspect that I have at last found out the thing that makes OpenGuides take people's servers over. It's the per-user RSS feeds, which are usually linked from e.g. http://cambridge.openguides.org/wiki/?username=Kake;action=userstats The problematic feeds are those which omit minor edits, and they're only a problem on large guides (Cambridge is fine, RGL is not). The reason for this is that they effectively select _everything_ from the database and then winnow it down. When a spider is hitting one of these feeds every second... I think you can see where this is going, and it's not pretty. The reason this has gone unnoticed for so long is that (a) nobody really uses these feeds anyway, so they only get accessed by spiders etc, and spiders aren't going to email us and say "hey, this link is very slow", and (b) these feeds are the only thing in OpenGuides that use "last n changes" as a selection criterion - Recent Changes uses "last n days", which is much more efficient. The root problem is with the _find_recent_changed_by_criteria method in Wiki::Toolkit::Store::Database, specifically the "metadata_wasnt" parameter in combination with the "limit" one. I am working on a rewrite of this method to make it more efficient, but this is going to require some thinking and hence some time. Kake

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

OpenGuides-Dev July 2008