[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

FeedTools

Ray Chen

7/27/2006 8:13:00 PM

Can someone verify for me that feedtools is incorrectly parsing
http://torrentspy.c... ? In my tests, feedtools can only find 1
entry for that rss. Other sites seem to work, so far.

TIA

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....
31 Answers

michael.moen

7/27/2006 10:57:00 PM

0

Ray Chen wrote:
> Can someone verify for me that feedtools is incorrectly parsing
> http://torrentspy.c... ? In my tests, feedtools can only find 1
> entry for that rss. Other sites seem to work, so far.
>
> TIA

Ray- it seems to be working for me, though if you picked up a new
version in the last few days, it was updated this afternoon to fix a
couple issues.

>> FeedTools::FEED_TOOLS_VERSION::STRING
=> "0.2.27"
>> f = FeedTools::Feed.open('http://torrentspy.c...')
=> #<FeedTools::Feed:0x-241bce82 URL:http://torrentspy.c...>
>> f.items.size
=> 25
>> f.entries.size
=> 25

Ray Chen

7/28/2006 2:06:00 AM

0

Thanks a lot you guys. It seems that that specific problem was solved
when I updated feedtools through gems. I was using 0.2.25 and now I'm
on 0.2.26 I notice that the previous poster is on 0.2.27, but I am
trying to stick to gem installs.

For a follow-up question, anyone know of a good ruby feed validator?

Currently I crawl what I think are feeds using my own custom crawler:

feed = FeedTools::Feed.new
feed.feed_data = _my_data_returned_from_crawler

I would like to 1) validate the feed before submitting feed contents to
feedtools 2) try to extract a feed link out of
_my_data_returned_from_crawler in the case that it is not a valid feed.

I have seen the ruby extension for feedvalidator.org, but unfortunately
I it won't work for me since I want to keep the validation on my local
machine.

Thanks a lot again.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Bob Aman

7/28/2006 3:04:00 AM

0

> Thanks a lot you guys. It seems that that specific problem was solved
> when I updated feedtools through gems. I was using 0.2.25 and now I'm
> on 0.2.26 I notice that the previous poster is on 0.2.27, but I am
> trying to stick to gem installs.
>
> For a follow-up question, anyone know of a good ruby feed validator?

There isn't one. You need Python for that.

> Currently I crawl what I think are feeds using my own custom crawler:
>
> feed = FeedTools::Feed.new
> feed.feed_data = _my_data_returned_from_crawler
>
> I would like to 1) validate the feed before submitting feed contents to
> feedtools 2) try to extract a feed link out of
> _my_data_returned_from_crawler in the case that it is not a valid feed.

If you're thinking about auto-discovery, FeedTools already has that
built-in. It just doesn't work in some cases (for example, on
Engadget). This should be fixed in the next release, hopefully.

> I have seen the ruby extension for feedvalidator.org, but unfortunately
> I it won't work for me since I want to keep the validation on my local
> machine.

What ruby extension? Please send me a link.

Cheers,
Bob Aman
--
AIM: sporkmonger
Jabber: sporkmonger@jabber.org

Lutz Horn

7/28/2006 6:57:00 AM

0

Hi,

* Ray Chen <ray.c.chen@gmail.com>:
> Thanks a lot you guys. It seems that that specific problem was solved
> when I updated feedtools through gems. I was using 0.2.25 and now I'm
> on 0.2.26 I notice that the previous poster is on 0.2.27, but I am
> trying to stick to gem installs.

This is not a problem of version 0.2.25:

irb(main):001:0> require 'rubygems'
=> true
irb(main):002:0> require_gem 'feedtools'
=> true
irb(main):003:0> FeedTools::FEED_TOOLS_VERSION::STRING
=> "0.2.25"
irb(main):004:0> f =
FeedTools::Feed.open("http://torrentspy.com/rss...)
=> #<FeedTools::Feed:0x-2439239a URL:http://torrentspy.com/r...
irb(main):005:0> f.items.size
=> 25
irb(main):006:0> f.entries.size
=> 25

Regards
Lutz

Ray Chen

7/28/2006 8:10:00 AM

0

Hi Bob,

I was referring to this:
http://feedvalidator.ruby...

I'm not sure exactly how to use auto-discovery since I use my own
crawler for http retrieval. Can you point me at the method that does
the auto-discovery?

Perhaps the http://torrentspy.c... case was broken for me since
my crawler returned a different output than what would have been gotten
using feedtools internals.

Ray


--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Bob Aman

7/28/2006 2:00:00 PM

0

> Hi Bob,
>
> I was referring to this:
> http://feedvalidator.ruby...
>
> I'm not sure exactly how to use auto-discovery since I use my own
> crawler for http retrieval. Can you point me at the method that does
> the auto-discovery?

If FeedTools fails to parse it checks the mime-type of the thing it
retrieved and if it was an (x)html mime-type it looks for the
auto-discovery stuff. This logic mostly happens in the update!
method, but also partly in the HtmlHelper module.

That said, I'd recommend against using your own crawler for dealing
with feeds unless you're only pulling the feed once. FeedTools has a
lot of functionality built in that's designed to prevent feeds from
being unnecessarily polled, thus wasting people's bandwidth. I
suppose you might have actually implemented all that functionality
yourself, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you haven't
added ETag/Last-Modified/If-None-Match/feed time-to-live support into
your crawler. Just be aware that failing to implement that stuff can
and will cost other people hundreds of dollars in bandwidth if you
poll too often without having that code in place. It's not exactly
polite.

> Perhaps the http://torrentspy.c... case was broken for me since
> my crawler returned a different output than what would have been gotten
> using feedtools internals.

Very possible.

Cheers,
Bob Aman
--
AIM: sporkmonger
Jabber: sporkmonger@jabber.org

SaPeIsMa

8/9/2012 3:37:00 PM

0


"peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:k00g22$n4i$1@dont-email.me...
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
> news:vhe728lm1t77km3t9mmsfqapsefrmeb3vu@4ax.com...
>
>>"peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>>>It's the exact opposite.
>>It limits government, not people.
>>
>>Nope.
>
>>If you can't even understand this, you have no hope at making any
> >sense of anything else.
>
>>What, are you English or something? Canadian perhaps? They're usually
> fairly ignorant about these things.
>

Now there's a nice bit of bigotry
ANYONE who has actually studied the subject KNOWS that the Constitution is
to establish a government and define its authority and the limits to it's
authority
ANYONE who has read the Bill of Rights KNOWS that they are NOT about
limiting individual rights but about limiting the GOVERNMENT
And this is CLEARLY BACKED UP by the material in the Federalist and
Anti-Federalist papers where the many framers and the people they
corresponded with discussed EXACTLY THAT !

And it doesn't matter which country you are from
What matters is reading for comprehension

> Thank you for snipping the meat of the question and then making an
> unsupportable assertion. Should you, at some point in the future, when you
> have some education on these matters, wish to contribute something
> coherent and intelligent people may listen if you have not predisposed
> them to ignoring you.

There you go jabbering like a pompous fool again

RD Sandman

8/9/2012 4:21:00 PM

0

"peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:jvurnm$p0t$1@dont-email.me:

> "RD Sandman" wrote in message
> news:XnsA0A994228F351hopewell@216.196.121.131...
>
> "peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in
> news:jvuk75$7hn$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> "RD Sandman" wrote in message
>> news:XnsA0A98D7E9267Chopewell@216.196.121.131...
>>
>> "peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in
>> news:jvuj20$vfm$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
>>> news:qhp428temnk0vn64ue644hi6f2dmu2c8ad@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>"peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
>>>>news:hbm4285uq259v2vmcd77ajurbgflc2bpaf@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>"peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>>OFCS you blithering idiot, the whole purpose of the Constitution is
>>>>>to limit
>>>>>people and tell how they can be further limited.
>>>>
>>>>>ROFLMAO
>>>>
>>>>>You have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>>>The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two
>>>>things:
>>>>
>>>>>Establish a federal government for the United States of America
>>>>Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated)
>>>>powers.
>>>>http://constitutionality.us/TheConstit...
>>>>
>>>>Now tell us all how what you said differs from what I said.
>>>
>>>>It's the exact opposite.
>>> It limits government, not people.
>>>
>>> Nope. It says which people have which rights and powers.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> The notion
>>> that the government (or the judiciary, a religion or company etc.)
>>> is not a group of people is a bit of really muddy thinking.
>>
>>>The fact that you seem to think that those people have all that power
>> without being in government is a bit of really muddy thinking.
>>
>>
>> That is not something that follows from anything I said. You seem to
>> have given up on being truthful.
>>
>>
>
>>Wasn't this comment yours?
>
>>"Nope. It says which people have which rights and powers."
>
>>And didn't it come right after this comment?
>
>>"It limits government, not people."
>
>>And followed up by this comment of yours:
>
>>"The notion
> that the government (or the judiciary, a religion or company etc.) is
> not a group of people is a bit of really muddy thinking."
>
>
>>It seems you were trying to say that the people in government have
>>rights
> and powers that others do not. Is that what you were trying to say?
> Yes or no.
>
> No. That is not a sensible conclusion from what I said at all. Of
> course people in the government do have ex-officio powers. So do
> engineers, clergymen, doctors and most other professions.
>
>>If yes, perhaps you should try to make yourself more clear on what you
> actually mean by saying that the Constitution says "which people have
> which rights and powers" and does not apparently apply to the
> government itself.
>
> The second amendment says something like "the right of the people to
> bear arms will not be infringed". There's nothing about who is not
> allowed to infringe it. There's a lot of that sort of text in the
> document. It applies to the government, but it also apples to you.

The Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. That
would lead a normal person to think that the Second Amendment is aimed at
the federal government. Lo and behold....it is. It was telling the
federal government not to infringe upon the right of the people to keep
and bear arms. That has been affirmed by our Supreme Court.

Have a nice day......


> Another thing you might bend your mind around is that the government
> is the agent of the people.

I already know that. It is the people who wrote it and told the federal
government what powers it had and what powers it doesn't.


--

The three most common last words in aviation are: "Did you hear that?",
"What was that noise?" and "Oh, Shit!!!"


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

RD Sandman

8/9/2012 4:23:00 PM

0

"peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:k00a78$kcd$1@dont-email.me:

> "SaPeIsMa" wrote in message news:jvv9r5$sc8$2@dont-email.me...
>
>
> "peter skelton" <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:jvurnm$p0t$1@dont-email.me...
> <s>
>>>If yes, perhaps you should try to make yourself more clear on what
>>>you
>> actually mean by saying that the Constitution says "which people have
>> which rights and powers" and does not apparently apply to the
>> government itself.
>>
>> The second amendment says something like "the right of the people to
>> bear arms will not be infringed". There's nothing about who is not
>> allowed to infringe it. There's a lot of that sort of text in the
>> document.
>
>>So basically you're admitting that you are UNABLE to read for
>>comprehension,
> not to mention that a document which defines and frames what the
> government can and cannot do would not also apply to said government
> in Amendments that restrict it further ?
> <sheesh>
>
> That your tone is insulting does not disguise that fact that you are
> not telling the truth

He pretty much is.

>> It applies to the government, but it also apples to you.
>>
>
>
>>NOT when it's saying that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE are NOT TO BE
>>INFRINGED
> Since the document is about two entities and one entity's right is not
> to be infringed, then it logically follows that the restriction
> applies to the OTHER entity
>
> Bullshit, hot and steaming. You do realize that entities other than
> governments have tried to disarm citizens, don't you?

Yes. However, the Constitution does not address those. It addresses the
federal government.

>>See how simple that was...
>
> Everything is simple, if you are willing to ignore the truth.

It would be easier if you understood the truth.




--

The three most common last words in aviation are: "Did you hear that?",
"What was that noise?" and "Oh, Shit!!!"


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

William Black

8/9/2012 4:45:00 PM

0

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 07:17:55 -0400, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 01:41:12PM +0100, Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:25:07 -0400, "peter skelton"
>> <skeltonpg@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Actually, I'm way ahead of you on that one. It restricts what they can do
>> >through their agent and also what they can do themselves. That you have been
>> >insulting does not mean that you have been correct.
>>
>> The technique seems to be intended to frighten people away by both the
>> level of personal attacks and the absolute number of posts.
>
>Nice of you to describe exactly what you are doing as well.

Liar.

>> I now fully expect to be attacked for bullying and doing all the nasty
>> things I have been accused them of...
>
>This isn't an attack, it's an observation.

Liar

>
>> It makes you understand why nobody wants to deal with these lunatics.
>>
>> They'd rather the odd congresswoman got shot than deal with the people
>> who want the freedom to shoot congresswomen (and Sikhs and school kids
>> and people watching a movie)
>
>The phenomenon of mass-shootings is interesting for the reason that it
>has no clear cause or origin.

Freely available pistols is the major reason people massacre innocents
with pistols.