[Privoxy-devel] 0008-speed-up-processing-of-cgi_show_url_final_info

[Fabian Keil]

Lee <ler762 at protonmail.com> wrote on 2023-08-30 at 20:19:59:

> On Wednesday, August 30th, 2023 at 1:39 PM, Fabian Keil wrote:
> 
> > Lee wrote on 2023-08-25 at 03:22:01:

> > > In any case, requesting http://p.p triggering a configuration change
> > > check is a side affect. One could accomplish the same thing
> > > requesting www.example.com or any other non-cgi url, but I'd suggest
> > > that if a user wants to make sure config files are current it would
> > > be better to make a cgi function that does the "reload any config,
> > > user or action file updated" function instead of having it be a
> > > side-affect of something else.
> > 
> > I think it's safe to assume that by now lots of users are used to
> > being able to trigger configuration checks and reloads by requesting
> > http(s)://p.p/ so we can't simply change this behaviour without
> > annoying lots of users.
> 
> To be clear, what changes is *re-loading* http(s)://p.p/ in a browser.
> The initial request always (at least in my testing) triggers a Info:
> Loading <whatever changed> file: It's only when one visits
> http://config.privoxy.org/show-url-info, changes one or more config /
> action or filter files and (in firefox) clicks on the 'Reload current
> page (CTRL+R)' button that updated files are not re-loaded.  Which is
> easily fixed.. hold down the shift key and click on the 'Reload current
> page (CTRL+R)' button and whatever files were updated get re-loaded.

This still means lots of users would have to change their work-flow.

Even I was unaware (or had forgotten) that SHIFT+CTRL+R results in
new connections being used.
 
> > > > Adding support for a "check-for-configuration-changes" variable
> > > > to the CGI handlers you care about seems cleaner to me and should
> > > > not affect users that don't set the variable.
> > > 
> > > Doesn't adding a new cgi function to make sure all files are updated
> > > seem better? No extra variables and no depending on side affects
> > 
> > It would still inconvenience users that are used to the current
> > behaviour.
> > 
> > However I think another option would be to add a config directive named
> > something like skip-automatic-configuration-checks to suppress the
> > current checks completely. Users that enable the directive would have
> > to restart Privoxy to reload the configuration or send a SIGHUP signal
> > or "we" could then add a CGI function like you proposed that causes
> > the reload.
> 
> Please don't do that.  Or at least, not on my account.. I'd rather not
> make any changes to Privoxy than require a restart or SIGHUP to get
> updated files read in.

Okay.

> I'm still using my 'Crunch: Blanked: xxx' log patch from however long ago - eg.
>   2023-08-30 15:40:31.043 000024a0 Crunch: Blanked: location.services.mozilla.com:443
> I don't mind continuing to apply my
>   if (continue_chatting && !(csp->flags & CSP_FLAG_CRUNCHED) && ...
> patch in jcc.c for my own version of privoxy.

Maybe we need to think about this some more as well.

Fabian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.privoxy.org/pipermail/privoxy-devel/attachments/20230904/5219e535/attachment.bin>