coollector.com

gigagiggles wrote:Sorry! The download link gave a 404 Not Found.

Oops, I did it again (c)

http://www.coollector.com/CoollectorTest4.exe

Test4 worked great!

Will the change be incorporated into future upgrades?

gigagiggles wrote:Test4 worked great!

That means complete victory ! No more endless loop ! No more corrupted pictures !

gigagiggles wrote:Will the change be incorporated into future upgrades?

Of course ! You can already rename Test4 and use it to replace your current Coollector.exe

Thank you!!

Could you share what the cause and solution was? If not, that's okay too.

gigagiggles wrote:Thank you!!

It's ME who thank YOU. Your help has been very useful, as always. Thank you very much for your patience !

gigagiggles wrote:Could you share what the cause and solution was?

The problem is that, on your computer, the pictures were received in chunks. I have no idea why it's like that. It seems to happen only to you. Well, only to you, not so sure... In fact, from time to time, my server logs have recorded some users who downloaded a lot of pictures very quickly. At the time, I thought they were users trying to collect all the pictures, but now I suspect they might have been users caught in an endless loop.

Chunked files transfer was introduced by the HTTP 1.1 protocol, so the goal of Test3 was to force the use of HTTP 1.0.

But when I tried Test3 on my computer, I saw that HTTP 1.0 wasn't forced. I looked at my code and saw that I had made a mistake. I've fixed that mistake with Test4 and... Tada !!!

Also, the corrupted pictures that you showed me, it's like they were sent in chunks and the last chunks were lost. I've also had some corrupted pictures like that on my computer (that's why I've added the file size checking).

Many thanks for sharing!

"Chunked files transfer was introduced by the HTTP 1.1 protocol, so the goal of Test3 was to force the use of HTTP 1.0."

So, Norton could still be implicated, by how its security handle the HTTP 1.1 protocol? Well, that's not your problem, so we'll sleep on that. Cheers.

gigagiggles wrote:So, Norton could still be implicated, by how its security handle the HTTP 1.1 protocol?

I have no idea. I don't have Norton, but I've already had corrupted pictures, like if chunked transfer had be used.