cache file extentions

cache file extentions

we want our cache to have file extentions. What a stupid move removing this feature and why?

We use our cache and we want it back the way it was in 9.27.

-1

Removing extensions made the cache faster and more secure. I wrote this in another thread:

There were good reasons for changing the cache: performance and security. It's faster without file extensions, and it prevents false positives from virus scanners, and protects you from accidental activation of viruses in the cache (a security flaw in Windows would get you infected if you merely viewed a folder containing a virus).

I don't want a slower cache (especially not with the nice new full page search from the address bar, which means that I've set my cache to 400 MB), and I don't want to risk virus infection or some lame antivirus program constantly nagging me with false positives.

why would you even want it to have an extension? It isn't like you have to open your cache every 2 minutes to look at it?

OK, I am new to this community and I regret my joining and first posting is due to a sudden discontentment... Hope you don´t mind.

Avoiding false postives by a virus scanner is not making anything safer. Avoiding false positives goes hand in hand with missing real ones.
Besides, what an outdated view of anti-virus programmes this is. Most of them do not (only) consider file extensions, but file content.
The argument that you might get infected by just viewing a folder in the cache is strange, in my opinion. If there is an infected file, I would prefer my AV detecting it aforehand to my browser saving me from my own actions in the cache.

I cannot say anything about the "faster" argument, because I have always been happy with speed, and I will not install 9.5 under these circumstances to test it.

Why don´t they leave it up to us?
PLEASE Opera, give us at least an option to keep or not keep the cache file extensions.

This is a matter of personal favour, habits, securicy concept and, if you don´t agree, simply a matter of taste (as is the "nice ne full page search from the addressbar" - I hate it ) and should be left to the users!
To me, the cache with file extensions has always been one of the crucial advantages of Opera compared to Firefox.

And yes, I do look at and use the cache quite often. If my virus guard detects something about to be written into in the cache, the file extension is an important info for me. And I have never gotten any false positives, even though I run the guard with the strictest settings possible.
Having no file extensions there makes things more obscure and more complicated. I like knowing what is in there, and sometimes I like looking for an mp3 instead of looking for a file that was created approximately during the last 30 minutes...

I hope this will be changed, so I can call Opera my all-time favourite browser and object of desire again!

Greetings from Germany,
White Lily

@WhiteLily: avoiding false positives does make it safer because with constant false positives, you'll start ignoring the warnings and could end up ignoring warnings that really matter.

Besides, you left out the part where excluding extensions would make it impossible to exploit flaws like the one where you could be infected simply by viewing a folder containing a virus due to the way Windows handles extensions. Yes, this was an actual vulnerability in Windows.

-1 for an option, as it's pure bloat and defeats the purpose of the cache.

opera:cache doesnt work if you set cache to "empty on exit"

You could add a wish to add previews on there, there is a hack around somewhere to do it.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

@WhiteLily: avoiding false positives does make it safer because with constant false positives, you'll start ignoring the warnings and could end up ignoring warnings that really matter.

As I said: an AV that checks files by checking extensions only is a rare and outdated thing. And as I said: I never had any FP caused by file extensions in the cache.
Can you tell me where a mass of people was complaining about that, and wanted Opera to "fix" what they could have fixed by decently configuring their AV? This is paternalism which I never associated with Opera.

Besides, you left out the part where excluding extensions would make it impossible to exploit flaws like the one where you could be infected simply by viewing a folder containing a virus due to the way Windows handles extensions. Yes, this was an actual vulnerability in Windows.

No, I didn´t leave that out. I commented on that, too, without principally questioning this vulnerability.

-1 for an option, as it's pure bloat and defeats the purpose of the cache.

You think it´s bloat, I don´t. If you don´t like it, choose no. What´s wrong about an option?
Come on, aren´t there many things in Opera that one might consider unimportant functions for the majority of users? Nevertheless, some like them, and it is left up to you if you activate and use them.
Define "purpose of the cache" - the purpose depends on your personal habits, doesn´t it.

I don´t demand cache file extensions as standard, I just would love to have an option.

> -1 for an option, as it's pure bloat and defeats the purpose of the cache.

Right now there is another purpose of the cache: to save some file that's unavailable through menus. For example:
- it is an embedded object (Flash, MP3, etc).
- it is a file that's invoked by a plugin (YouTube video).
- it is a background image.
If the file is large (video), we'll find it regardless of extension. But what to do if the file is small (for example, low-quality MP3)? Two criteria (MP3 dated a few minutes ago) are rather crisp; we replace them with vague "some file 100K-1M in size, dated a few minutes ago".

Well, it's not really a purpose, it's a workaround. But you cut this workaround from users. PLEASE ADD THE OPTION OR SOME SUBSTITUTE!
(for example, a menu item that'll allow to save those files without digging in cache will dispose of this workaround, and we won't care of cache extensions).

+1

I often copy files from cache cause it's often the only way, but without extensions it's much more difficult.
I want to empty cache on exit but then opera:cache desn't work (feature or bug... for me it's a bug).
Even if opera:cache would work... I can't sort files by size, date, extension so opera:cache is useless. But if I could sort them... it's much easier and faster to do it in any file browser like TC so... I need cache extensions.
I think solving problems with av that way is crazy... It's like removing useful features to avoid problems with external software. Stupid

And sorry for my probably bad english

@Mercury13: no, the purpose of a cache is not to save files that are unavailable through menus. Opera's cache was never designed for that. The cache was designed to do caching. That you are using it for something it wasn't designed for isn't Opera's problem.


@WhiteLily: oh, I get it. You are one of those people. You are one of those people who think Opera lives in an ivory tower, and Opera is always correct and doesn't have to adapt to the realities of the market. You are one of those people. The people who want Opera to ignore any code on websites that isn't 100% standards compliant. Who cares about whether Opera actually works as long as it enforces standards strictly! And if a site is broken and the code isn't 100% standards compliant, Opera should refuse to do anything!

Because facing the realities of the market (adding a quirks mode to handle broken code or working around problems in antivirus software) is paternalism which you never associated with Opera!

You want me to define the purpose of the cache? The purpose is to function as a cache. As a temporary storage which the user shouldn't really be messing with. And if he does, Opera is not to be held responsible, because the cache is obviously a feature used by Opera internally to do page rendering. The cache is a cache, that's it.

Originally posted by Kiekeboe100:

why would you even want it to have an extension? It isn't like you have to open your cache every 2 minutes to look at it?

View->Source, with an external editor, opens a cached file. Without file extension, many text editors loose syntax colors.

Originally posted by WhiteLily:

The argument that you might get infected by just viewing a folder in the cache is strange, in my opinion.

It's a minor source of infection, but it's one.
This has been discussed before:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=203663&t=1213707951&page=5#comment2542230

I cannot say anything about the "faster" argument, because I have always been happy with speed, and I will not install 9.5 under these circumstances to test it.

I don't know either if it's really faster.
However, I've had serious performances issues that seemed related to caching with Opera 9.1x and 9.2x.
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=194921

Originally posted by me:

When the cache contains many files (e.g. 30MiB for 3000 files), Opera 8.54 still exits in one or two seconds, but Opera 9.20 requires twenty or thirty seconds.
[...]
When I empty the cache directory, it exits very quickly, as for Opera 8.54.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

avoiding false positives does make it safer

Doesn't it increase the number of false negatives too?
If you really trust your browser's cache (though, IMO, it's one of the least safe locations of your disk), set your AV to disable scanning the cache directory.

Originally posted by WhiteLily:

I don´t demand cache file extensions as standard, I just would love to have an option.

I think it's easier to make Opera accept & implement file extensions as mandatory than as an option.
Main reason: Either you would get some internal code forked, with all the maintenance issues duplicated, or you would get the worst of both worlds: Poor performances for everybody.

There are three possibilities:
1) Use file extensions
2) Use no file extension
3) Make it an option

IMO, (3) is the worst.
It's harder to say whether (1) is better than (2).
Personally, I would prefer (1).

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Because facing the realities of the market (adding a quirks mode to handle broken code or working around problems in antivirus software) is paternalism which you never associated with Opera!

An AV wants to detect malwares with as few false positive and false negatives as possible, with a biais towards false negatives prevention, to be on the safe side, because it's not dangerous to get a few FP a year, but a few FN a year isn't acceptable.
Combining these two numbers in some equation, AV creators define an optimal level of detection.
The overall performances of an AV is a function of the number of FP and FN.

You're basically saying that removing info about the real type of files (file extensions) improve AV performances. What are those buggy AV that don't ignore file extensions if, in the first place, they reduce their performances? How do removing info IMPROVE AV performances? Unless the AV is highly bogous and is weighted to produce far too many FP (in that case you'd rather not use it at all, or buy another one), I don't see how this is possible.
This is like saying: "Meteo would be more effective if it didn't have info on clouds position and speed".

Now, if I assume that the AV program is good: Giving the file extension can only improve its performances.

File without extensions are safer because of explorer preview mode: OK.
File without extensions are better because they reduce AV false positives: NO!

Originally posted by BleedingHeart:

You could add a wish to add previews on there, there is a hack around somewhere to do it.

That would be very interesting...
Do you have some more details, please?

Originally posted by SuperKoko:

View->Source, with an external editor, opens a cached file. Without file extension, many text editors loose syntax colors.

That's true, alas!
This could however be overcome easily, because when you open this file with an editor which is known to OPERA, then OPERA could simply add the extension for that file in the opening procedure for that editor.

AFAIK, but I don't remember well, this worked already within some 9.50 snapshot, but others may know better...

Originally posted by WhiteLily:

You think it´s bloat, I don´t. If you don´t like it, choose no. What´s wrong about an option?
Come on, aren´t there many things in Opera that one might consider unimportant functions for the majority of users? Nevertheless, some like them, and it is left up to you if you activate and use them.

Totally agree.

Interesting that GoJoeGo didn't respond to that part at all.

@SuperKoko: removing extensions improves performance in Opera itself, not related to antivirus programs. Opera's handling is faster because they are gone. That's what they said anyway. That it's safer is just another thing that's a benefit with the new system.


@MetalRaise: I have responded many times. I've pointed out that an option is useless because it adds complexity and caters to extreme corner cases that have got nothing to do with what a cache is there for in the first place.

@ HaJotKE http://my.opera.com/Lex1/blog/show.dml/1014525 for images anyway.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

I've pointed out that an option is useless because it adds complexity and caters to extreme corner cases that have got nothing to do with what a cache is there for in the first place.

Lots of people are missing that feature, not only here in the Opera forums. So having an option definitely is not useless. Or are you trying to say that the opinion of Opera users doesn't count at all? Yes, it seems that's what you're trying to say, thanks for clarifying.

And yes, adding an option for enabling/disabling file extensions really is a very, very, very complex and complicated business.
I think Microsoft should completely remove them in Windows 7 for improved speed, simplicity and safety.
Dude, did you ever think about applying for a job at Opera or Microsoft? They'll totally fall in with your brilliant ideas.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

@SuperKoko: removing extensions improves performance in Opera itself, not related to antivirus programs.

Yes, but I was specifically responding to your argument about AV false-positives.
Since AV have both FP and FN, I combined them both in the term "AV performance". I could've said "AV efficiency". Anyway, this is unrelated to computer speed.

For CPU performance, I trust Opera developers claiming that it improves speed.

Originally posted by HaJotKE:

This could however be overcome easily, because when you open this file with an editor which is known to OPERA, then OPERA could simply add the extension for that file in the opening procedure for that editor.

Very good!

Originally posted by BleedingHeart:

@ HaJotKE...

Thanks a lot...

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

@Mercury13: no, the purpose of a cache is not (...)

Usage may differ from intended use, but who cares? Did this usage ever harm anybody? Did it damage anything? No.

Opera's cache was never designed for that.

Erm... If you feel that "showing file extensions" is "design", well yes it was Anyway, see my above sentence on purpose vs usage.

@WhiteLily: oh, I get it. You are one of those people (......................)

Oh, I get it. You are one of those people who get offensive if they feel they´re running out of arguments and logic. Btw: no, I´m not. But to say who and what we are does not contribute to this discussion, does it? (except if you answer MetalRaise´s question and tell us you are working for Opera in the Public Relations sector )

Because facing the realities of the market (adding a quirks mode to handle broken code or working around problems in antivirus software) is paternalism which you never associated with Opera!

I doubt that this is a way of facing the realities of the market. Just the opposite is the case; people who care about their cache are discontented now; and the others won´t notice a thing. (Oh and don´t repeat the virus stuff - I will not accept it ever, this is just nonsense, as others here have sufficiently explained as well.)
In fact, I rather believe it is a thing that somehow came up in the weeklies and was not thought about much; [paranoia on] or they get sponsored by certain lobbies [paranoia off]. In any case I cannot imagine people blaming Opera for FP from their AV. Cache file extension however was a feature that distinguished Opera in a positive way from both IE and FF.

which the user shouldn't really be messing with.

Oh, copy and paste equals mess with? Gee...

And if he does, Opera is not to be held responsible, because the cache is obviously a feature used by Opera internally to do page rendering. The cache is a cache, that's it.

Yes, I agree. And that´s why Opera should not be held responsible for FP or anything either. It is up to me whether I have a look into the cache or not, it is up to me what I do there, and that´s just it. I want authority, transparency and options on my system, and no "stop, you and your AV are too stupid to see what´s in here, you better not enter".

Originally posted by SuperKoko:

It's a minor source of infection, but it's one.

Yes, I didn´t question that. Never heard of it before, but OK, may exist. But then your AV is to blame for not recognizing it, not Opera for letting you view it. Besides, I bet anything "infecting when viewed" would also "infect when left alone" sooner or later.

Doesn't it increase the number of false negatives too?
If you really trust your browser's cache (though, IMO, it's one of the least safe locations of your disk), set your AV to disable scanning the cache directory.

full ack in all points you make here.

I think it's easier to make Opera accept & implement file extensions as mandatory than as an option.

May very well be, I can´t judge this.

it's not dangerous to get a few FP a year, but a few FN a year isn't acceptable.

exactly.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

@SuperKoko: removing extensions improves performance in Opera itself, not related to antivirus programs. Opera's handling is faster because they are gone. That's what they said anyway. That it's safer is just another thing that's a benefit with the new system.

You are contradicting yourself now, I think. Anyway, even if it was about speed only - the side effect on AV programs is NOT making anything safer. The ONLY thing getting safer is that you are saved from getting infected by viewing such a rare damned tricky malware folder in the cache.
BUT: If you want to copy a file from there and have to do a little bit of trial-and-error-clicking (give it an extension, open it with the suitable program, ok, that wasn´t it, let´s try the next one) actually states a new risk, which is just as big!
I was always happy with speed and would never ever trade speed for security. Rather I´ll switch to Firefox and get some obscure cache viewer plug-in then.

Originally posted by WhiteLily:

Did it damage anything?

From the Opera dudes feedback (in the other thread) I understood that it had performance drawbacks and Opera implements a new caching algorithm, with better performances, with the unwanted side effect of loosing file extensions.
In my personnal experience, Opera 9.1x and Opera 9.2x had MAJOR cache performance problems even for relatively small caches (20 or 30 megabytes).
See my thread about it:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=194921

Maybe it's not worth the cost of removing extensions...

In fact, I rather believe it is a thing that somehow came up in the weeklies and was not thought about much;

I guess it's something they changed, when optimizing their caching system, without much thought about its negative consequences, because they didn't expect users to look at the cache directory.
(That's just a wild guess)
I don't think it's impossible to get the best of both worlds: The new algorithm might be rethought to work with file extensions.

@MetalRaise: actually, Windows hides file extensions by default. But file extensions are how file types are identified in Windows when handling files. But the cache was not designed to be "handled". It was designed as an internal data storage.


@SuperKoko: I never saw Opera never say anything about antivirus performace. It's about false positives and security.


@WhiteLily: if usage differs from intended use, you do it at your own risk. No one claimed that the unintended usage harmed anyone or damaged anything. But relying on a feature to do something it wasn't designed to do is silly.

I have no idea what you mean by "showing file extensions is design". I was referring to how the cache should be designed for its primary purpose.

Also, I'm not running out of arguments. It is you who started talking about how adapting to market realities is "paternalism which I never associated with Opera".

And just because you won't accept the antivirus argument doesn't mean that it doesn't exist People will notice something: They will now get fewer false positives, and they will be more secure. And the cache handling is much faster.

If you don't think people blame Opera for false positives in the cache, search the forum. There are lots of threads where people think they got infected through Opera because of it!

Finally, no one said that the effect on antivirus programs made anything safer. You are seriously confused, so let me break it down to you. Here are the benefits of the new caching system:

1. It's much faster and handles more files
   
2. It prevents false positives from antivirus programs
   
3. It prevents accidental virus infections like the vulnerability where merely viewing a list of files in Windows Explorer would get you infected
   

The second and third point are completely unrelated. The second point deals with antivirus programs, and the thirt point with an actual security flaw in Windows, and closing a future attack vector. You are either not paying attention or setting up a straw man.

Ok here is a thought: - just suppose opera decided to use a form of compression INSTEAD of the cache from the start... (just like it uses it for the skin icons) - and this actually increased the performance and speed in a large order of magnitude..

what then??

and for those still desperate to use the cache, there are ways of doing so... Xnview is a very full-featured viewer/filemanager, that *does not* need extensions.. ACDsee is another, though it is not free...

Also note that the main users of opera will not be using the cache, it will be those that *should* know what they are doing!!! - I use textpad sometimes check the source, how simple is to just save it quickly????

I've even a better trick to reduce the number of AV false positives, and thus, the number of complaints of AV FP on Opera forums: Just turn off your AV!

lay yer bets people!! how many hours/minutes will it take until 'infection' spreads????

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

There were good reasons for changing the cache:

First reason that comes to my mind is to make files much harder to be retrieved by the user for what reason ever...

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

It's faster without file extensions

Is it?

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

it prevents false positives from virus scanners

Most scanners are set to highest security (to scan all files) and not to scan by file extensions.
So your argument makes little sense if any.
Why not append to the existing extension another bogus one? (RootKit.exe."bogus")
A bogus extension could indeed give you the option to exclude all files with that bogus extension from being scanned.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

and protects you from accidental activation of viruses in the cache

Rename malware by giving a bogus extension and see what will happen. Nothing.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

(a security flaw in Windows would get you infected if you merely viewed a folder containing a virus)

The same way my neighbor's daughter could get pregnant if I merely look at her

I need my cache to give me file extensions. The old cache was perfect, the new one is useless.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

And the cache handling is much faster.

Faster? Much faster?
Please, show me reliable benchmark results to prove your claim.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

[...] and handles more files

Proof?

Originally posted by MetalRaise:

Faster? Much faster?
Please, show me reliable benchmark results to prove your claim.

He can't... The only proof we got is the comparison speed of 9.27 & 9.5, which could be easily refute by dozens of excuses.
Seems like GoJoeGo pissed off a lot of people here...

Avoiding false postives by a virus scanner is not making anything safer. Avoiding false positives goes hand in hand with missing real ones.
Besides, what an outdated view of anti-virus programmes this is. Most of them do not (only) consider file extensions, but file content.

Hi @ all,

I'm new to this forum too but I totally agree with you ... I miss the cashe file extensions very much and wanna show you two screenshots (sorry they are in German). For example Kaspersky is configured by its default to scan files based on what they really are and not what the extension is saying they might be or not (screenshot one) and so it's alerting even without any extension when it's finding something harmful (screenshot two). In this way almost every anti virus program is operating. Nowadays it doesn't matter for a anti virus program if a file has an extension or not.

About false positives: Most of them are because of a mistake in the anti virus database or because of a heuristics which is too sensitive. Both are things Opera cannot affect.

opera_cache_01.png
opera_cache_02.png

Thanks to everybody for supporting the wish. (OK, almost everybody )

Originally posted by SuperKoko:

I don't think it's impossible to get the best of both worlds: The new algorithm might be rethought to work with file extensions.

I hope so.

Originally posted by Krake:

Why not append to the existing extension another bogus one? (RootKit.exe."bogus")
A bogus extension could indeed give you the option to exclude all files with that bogus extension from being scanned.

Also a nice idea. Even though I´m not sure: if I don´t want the cache to be excluded from AV scanning, I´d constantly get alerts due to double extensions, I guess.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

It is you who started talking about how adapting to market realities is "paternalism which I never associated with Opera".

That was no personally offensive statement, was it. It was a statement about the software and Opera ASA´s reputation and policies. If you cannot cope with it, it´s rather you who is a stubborn Opera-is-always-right-person. Getting tired with that now.

And just because you won't accept the antivirus argument doesn't mean that it doesn't exist

And just repeating your statements will not make them more logical or true. I am not going to argue any further, enough has been said by me and others.

hey guys... note that it is you who are arguing about it, Opera has already decided it, for *what-eva* reason.... we are only guessing here.... it needs some expert on what happens to the source *as it comes in*... I would guess that the file type is found by the mime type, so why bother with 'naming' the raw data??? I know that IE does not bother looking at the extension, it can load a file referenced as '.doc' and know it is a .pdf, and so load the right program!

+1

Yes please make it an option to use file-extensions.

It was useful in earlier versions to find recently downloaded file (flash video, jpeg picture or html file with your post in forum, that you accidently deleted) using it's extension in cache folder. I could sort files by extension or by size in my cache4 folder using Total Commander and then easily copy them to another place. Or review all pictures in ACD See etc. etc.
In 9.5 version opera cuts all file extensions in it's cache. And all this useful functionality became thing of a past

It would be even better if Opera preserve native file name as it is on server, but adds unique number from beginning. For ex. opr735427_someimg.jpg
Then user can copy to another folder and rename files by mask, cutting unique Opera name.

Cutting extensions fasters working with cache for about ~0.1%
It is nothing!
There is really good suggestion for improving cache speed here:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=238859

[ePyBuM]Cutting extensions fasters working with cache for about ~0.1%

Not so. Replacing the file extensions would seriously impact on performance due to the way that Opera indexes the cache. See this post and earlier ones. I have no idea whether an option to turn file extensions back on is feasible, but perhaps Opera should offer the option if it is since some people want it. They may prefer to trade some performance for easier searching of the cache.

haavard says that developers made an improvement of cache, but he doesn't say that cutting extensions is that improvement (it's just his guess). 45kb less in RAM for 15000 files due to 3 letters cut is not an improvement. If it make any difference they would cut first 'opr' letters too, cause they are unnecessary.
Opera team just didn't know how important extensions are for Opera users (=

It is advisable to read the whole thread /Pesala/ was pointing to, BTW...

Given the fact, that endless repetition of non-sense arguments in the forums regarding OPERA's new cache structure doesn't stop here, which is really annoying to many users and isn't making really sense, but apparently is most welcome by some OPERA ASA responsible persons, and furthermore given the fact that there are real advances made regarding speed and stability of caching - although based on other measures than only those extension issues, as /jonnyrein/ explained - I am afraid the old OPERA cache won't come back in its former shape, and I further believe fulfilling user wishes with respect to extensions could be done better by some external application, a "CacheManager" program, preferably being programmed in JAVA.

Looking into opera:cache you'll see - if 'Empty on exit' is unchecked (another nonsense or bug) - there are those cached files (W/O extensions, designated "opr01YT0" e.g.) shown in a first column designated 'Name', a second column shows their 'Size', and the (currently) last column shows their complete web-'Address', where mostly the extension for the file can be found. All these informations come from a file designated 'dcache4.url' located in OPERA's cache folder '...profile/cache4/'.

An external "CacheManager" program could now do the following:

- establish said "CacheManager" program for two operation modes, a so-called background 'non-real-time' surveillance mode, and a foreground 'real-time' activation mode.

- in said background 'non-real-time' surveillance mode the "CacheManager" program has to monitor that 'dcache4.url' file and analyze any changes in some adjustable 'non-real-time' intervals, i.e. when it is not called for other actions, such as displaying the folder contents...

- in said surveillance mode mode then copy all files from OPERA's true cache folder '...profile/cache4/' into another "CacheManager" folder by analyzing the informations from 'dcache4.url' and M/B separately extra checks for pertinent MIME-informations from their web-sites, in 'non-real-time' intervals, which however could be furnished by OPERA browser also, as it has already got these informations, M/B they are stored elsewhere.

This would guarantee always a near complete summed-up file mirror from OPERA's true cache contents within said new "CacheManager" folder during operation of the "CacheManager" program in the background. File deletions don't take place, never - until some prescribed limit of folder size is reached, for sure; which would also have the advantage that cache expiry functions don't let any files disappear, depending on the intervals.

Upon activation of the foreground 'real-time' activation mode, i.e. when the "CacheManager" program is called to display its cache contents e.g., an immediate 'real-time' action is required, updating the "CacheManager" folder contents to actual state in an incremental way only actualizing i.e. copying missing files - not deleting anything - which however should not take much time.
In that activation mode any changes of OPERA's real cache are monitored closely to always keep the state up-to-date, which will however not be too CPU-load intensive, as the user has focused the "CacheManager" program to the foreground and OPERA browser is now operating in the background. It's mainly needed for complex web-sites with real-time changes...

Any other external editor or file viewer or file-manager program could now use the contents of that fully-fledged new "CacheManager" folder with file extensions etc.
This would also have the advantage that this "CacheManager" program is only used, when needed, otherwise it's not running at all, thus not consuming any CPU-cycles. It's furthermore using a smart method for such a task, because of its two economically operation modes. It also would have the advantage that this "CacheManager" program would not bloat OPERA browser and not steal OPERA work-force, which is at a limit anyway, IMO... .
Additionally this would not complicate the OPERA browser and would only be used by people really needing it.
Some co-operation of OPERA devs would however be a wish...

I would now like to read your opinions on this.
Please consider my writing about this in only a scratch pad way of working.
Errors and flaws still possible, be somewhat forbearing, please.

From OPERA browser devs I would expect some actual documents about the pertinent techniques applied, files used etc., furthermore some amendments to OPERA's internal cache manager as shown when calling opera:cache, especially the application of a method delivering complete file names to an external but OPERA default file editor when calling it via internal OPERA command, because this would be an easy task for the OPERA browser, it's got all information needed so far.

As last remark, such a project should be commonly developed by an OpenSource initiative regulated via Sourceforge.

Ok no TOFU Discussions here.... I am just posting that to let ][e* know what I am replying to (as I respect the move to consolidate the threads)....

[ePyBuM]

Originally posted by Shandra:

if Opera, like all good Apps. recognizes the filetype by it's header -> thats fine.

it doesn't recognize files by header. There is dcache4.url that stores all inforamtion needed (url, real file name, time etc.)

Originally posted by Shandra:

And yes there are other threads about it, my reply captured the first within the forum (in my time of visit)...

Thanks, I found this one
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=236231&page=1#comment2617881
will continue posting there.

So If Opera does it via a config/ini file... then I don't understand at all why striping of extentions may gain anything.... Because of this discussion I let my brain get messed up - my 1st thoughts would have been Opera needs that information anyway, so filename is no matter... 2nd thoughts where: if they ommit extention, maybe they have some way of rebuilding such a structure from start via headers (as I mentioned in the other thread - no one can stop a programmer from meddling with headers, and Opera could well have found a way to place a tag-mark there).... But if they still need the reference file for it, I again - really! - see no reason to obmit the extention - wich is there for us users and our convinience!

And unlike some users - I as a long time - just once infected (in a situation I was prepared and has expected it *1) user - there really, really is no plus in security by obmitting the extention ... in fact I would say vice versa... security by obscurity is contra-productive! It meddles with us users - wich in the end are the final instance to secure a system....

*1: In a situation I tried out with MacAllan a Videoconferencing Program and my Firewall was a handicap... so, partition image taken, firewall canceled.... strange file in system32 afterwards, forget to capture it... netddecint.exe was the file in question - and strangely it never made a huge impact in AV Announcements (and Forums entries or Google search in that time where really, really strange - because sometimes I got 1-2 hits, next hour none....).. But as I said - prepared, but acted to fast to rebuild old status of system (and afterwards recreating an empty file in System32 with that name and striped of all access rights... but that was before my NAT-Firewall times...).....

Al good explanations and defence but if a user wants or need something ( I like to have file extensions ) you better give it to him/her.

Telling: Oh now its safer and faster ( even adding a Nobel-price winning explanation why that is good ) will not convince me or another user to stick with the software.

If I Excel doesn't start anymore and I am told that is for safety by blocking the macro's I have to look for a program that works for me.

In a few years Opera-against-all-odds-defenders-of-the-faith will still be getting hig on a millisecond speed win over other browsers and use that as an excuse to exclude features users want.

I use 9.27 ( with all its limitaions ): When looking for a newer browser I compare my user wish list to what programs offer.

The three mayor issues which stop me from using Opera 9.5 for me are:
The (absense) of extensions in cache ("but ist for your safety blah")
The horrible reload/redownload when saving images ("Opera is faster then FF3 blah")
The bad rendering of (images in) some webpages ("It is your settings blah")

Maybe the worst of all is not being taken serious ...

HaJotKE: are you offering to make this '9.5 cache explorer' program??? please!!
- otherwise, XNview is a very good tool for expert users... It can reconise most file types, and color the line to indicate... those that are not graphics, it wil display either text or hexcode...

or even simpler you could construct a program to recognise the 'header info' (the first few bytes) of a file, and reproduce that in a 'clickable' format...

- I am a very slow programmer myself though, and I guess V10 may be out before I have managed it!!!

+1 for option

I dont care about the size etc of the cache, BUT

I do want to have the option to get into the cache and retrieve files from there

AND in doing this,
I do want to know what the files are via their APPLICATION TYPE.

I understand that opera vs. IE sets its own name for these files, and I have learned to cope with this.

BUT P L E A S E
can someone make sure that the files in cache ahve their extension IDs given back.

AND SOONER rather than later......

@Krake: yes, some crazy conspiracy theory surely makes more sense than the actual facts Yes, it's faster without extensions, as explained by Opera's own engineers. Yes, it prevents false positives, as explained by Opera's won engineers. Just because "most scanners" do this or that doesn't mean that all of them do. Opera needs to live in the real world where some virus scanners do weird things.


@MetalRaise: you'll have to ask the Opera developers who posted those explanations in the first place, in some old thread about this. (In fact, Pesala linked to some of them.) Don't blame me for your own lack of insight into Opera's statements...


@WhiteLily: I just pointed out the hypocrisy (or separation from reality) of a statement. Opera actually explained these changes. It isn't my fault that people keep ignoring the reasons and making up silly statements about Opera.


@Shandra: if security by obscurity is counter-productive, how about you post your password here for the world to see. After all, hiding it from us is just "security by obscurity"


@927user: I want Opera to serve me coffee in the morning. According to you, since I want it, Opera better give it to me Oh, and what do you know about the speed increase? Do you know something the rest of us don't?

I see GoJoeGo is local Mr. Smart-I-know-everything

>>>I want Opera to serve me coffee in the morning.
Extensions in cache is not a luxury, it's what we had and what we used to. Now it's gone.
With new version I didn't feel the speed improvements, I was totally satisfacted with the old one, but rather the absence of old good feature in return for... nothing.

As we use to say "Учи Матчасть":
Overheads on implementing hash with extensions wouldn't make perceptible influence on performance. Besides searching is not a bottleneck in cache system. Working with hdd is. There's a buffer improvement on NTFS systems that is ignored very long (look below).

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

you'll have to ask the Opera developers who posted those explanations in the first place, in some old thread about this. (In fact, Pesala linked to some of them.) Don't blame me for your own lack of insight into Opera's statements...

Don't blame me for not having read every single line of text here in the forum.
On the other hand you're the one who's constantly spreading such claims, yet again you're unable providing proof for them.

@][ePyBuM: oh, I get it. You weren't having any problems, so clearly no one else did either

By the way, your reply to my comment about coffee missed the point. I was trying to show that just because you demand something doesn't mean that Opera needs to give it to you. His comment was like a threat, but it should be obvious to anyone with more than half a brain that it's impossible for Opera to do what every single user tells them to do.


@MetalRaise: sorry for thinking that you actually paid attention and tried to educate yourself about the actual reasoning behind the changes before commenting. I'll avoid that mistake in the future

@ FanJoeBoy:

Yes, instead of helping and providing a link you're doing what you can best:
making fun of other people and treating us like we're all idiots.

Had some problems posting with my nick's symbols ][ (=
registered another one

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

@][ePyBuM: oh, I get it. You weren't having any problems, so clearly no one else did either

You think you get it? You made a hasty conclusion. I spoke for myself only for not having problems. Reread my post one more time.

If take your post to another perspective, you didn't use cache files extensions, so clearly no one else need them either

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

it's impossible for Opera to do what every single user tells them to do

Look around. He is not a single user, single user is you. I don't understand why are you posting the same words over and over again. Are you trying to convince us all of insignificance of subj? It seems to me that you are just a troll.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

By the way, your reply to my comment about coffee missed the point... just because you demand something doesn't mean that Opera needs to give it to you

There were no missunderstanding. I answered exactly on what you wanted to say. In other words it hit bulls eye

It's very sad to look at a person, that talks about things that he do not know absolutly, trying to show that he's a best and the only one specialist. Opera team didn't state anywhere that it's impossible to make indexing work with extensions. Please disproove it, otherwise you will look quite silly.

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

Just because "most scanners" do this or that doesn't mean that all of them do. Opera needs to live in the real world where some virus scanners do weird things.

Sorry - that sounds like GFX-Drivers... where from some time on in the past Matrox, NVidiot and ATI started to apply application (games) based fixes to their drivers... the driver packages went up in size and none of the game-distributors cared to fix their wrong code or non-speced use of APIs... I was against that in those times and I still am against such 3rd Party fixes... off course it ***** the user if some App does not work like it should, but it ain't the responsibility of a gfx-adapter manufacturer! Their responsibility is to get the specs rights in their driver! In the end this double responsibility or care leads to problems without end if someday both stand up to their responsibility (in patches for apps. and with products not supported anymore)!

Of course the analogy is not accurate, because here we are just talking "filename"... but still, Opera can make sure for extra security - but they don't have to and should not do to ease others of their responsibility! Here we are talking ease of convinience for the user & the cache is one of the features most of us use to gather single files from visited sites & for US the extentions are reducing our time we spend on it! So what is faster... a browser that displays a side a few microns earlier, or a browser wich supports my workflow and time spend in using my system.... Sorry! Those minutes I now have to waste are worth a few nanoseconds wasted whilst browsing!

P.S.: I never was for a split of installers or downloads.... but with such arguments as you are posting against the wishes of the user I would beg for a geek-opera and a noob-opera installer and version.
And those loosy security Argument is IMHO still invalid, because a well mantained system would not be affected (reminds me about a report of late that proclaimed W2k more secure then XP&Vista (Vista still better then XP though)... forgetting that W2k never was that widely used among 0815 Users (WinME :LOL:) but mostly by Geeks and Corporations (as you had to buy it, it was not shipped with the average discounter system)... so the users of W2k per se was better in mantaining and administrating the system and a general comperance is void ( or at all is a comperance of users and ability) - should I add that W2k was until XP X64 (Server 2k3 based) my most beloved OS from M$?)

@XePyBuM: exactly, you only spoke for yourself and neglected to take into consideration all the people who had problems with the cache slowing down Opera. And all of us are single users. What matters is not who can pretend to represent everyone else the must, but rather who uses the rational and factual arguments. When 927user used the argument that Opera should give him something just because he demands it, that is about as reasonable as me demanding anything I want and expecting Opera to deliver

And I never claimed that Opera said that it was impossible to make indexing work with extensions. They said that removing the extensions increased performance.


@Shandra: except that wasn't the only reason for removing the extensions. There were 3 reasons that I can recall, and they were performance, convenience (preventing false positives) and security (e.g., preventing automatic triggering of viruses when viewing a folder (actual Windows flaw in fact) and stuff like that).

Originally posted by GoJoeGo:

(preventing false positives)

Can you please stop from usingthat phrase? It get's on my nerves! The major slwo down I ever encountered with my systems (BitDef, Nod32) where the monitoring of Operas chache folder... so thats on the exclude list..... If any Virus in there gets accidentily executed, it is them to capture the evocation in memory and their doing in other folders/files... (Trust me, I keep a Virus Databse/Samply in my EMail Attachments... It is nice to have them kept for reference instead of oblivion/NIL)... back to topic... false positives you encounter everyday if you work with good heuristics and deep system applications... it is know your source & and trust in your own abilities... I rather have a few false more then any true getting through!
And if people think their lossy rated AV solution in every PC Mag is worth anything are complaining I am back to my GFX-Driver analogy! It is not upon Opera to ease the responsibility of AV & OS Programmers.... ( I hate SUITES! I want one application for a given task! Opera as a browser is an exception, as I ever was used to Browser+Client+Reader in one (Be it early UUCP times where all where handled by EMacs and later by Netscape))

Sorry... preventing "false positives" is a critical arguments... to filter out false positives is why I and others use not only real-time scanners, but also on-demand ones and external system scanns... Better to be wrong on one, then to miss one critical! And by the way... to drive a car you have to earn a licence... if people keep away from RTFM and System-Knowledge... and Corps act on them as their major target... it is us real users that are on the losing side! (Ok, that one is not meant in contexts extentionts, but as an extrapolation of ways)