fpgroups.com: A raw chat room is now available

[fp at casabellagallery.com]

Mark posted:


> > 
> > I have put up a simple but functional (as far as I can test it so far) chat
> > room.  It is open and unrestricted.  Check it out and let me know if you
> > guys find it to serve the purpose of allowing two or more members to chat,
> > speed, looks ... 
> 
> My initial reaction:  Ugh.
> 
> Pretty much everything about that interface goes against the grain of
> conventional realtime chat programs.  Entry box on top, enter does not send
> and no option to make it do so, entry -above- the conversation.  Oh, and
> when you click on Send or hit Tab-Enter to hit it with the keyboard, it
> doesn't refocus you in the entry box.  That is cumbersome as hell.
> 
> Then there's the conversation itself.  Below the entry area, and in
> -reverse- chronological order.  You need the reverse order because the page
> is so long you'd have to scroll to the bottom to see what was said, which
> would be a pain.
> 
> As it is, though, this system is entirely lacking (from what I can see) in
> private message functionality.  This, combined with apparently the
> persistent nature of the conversation as stored and presented on my screen
> from when I wasn't even on, results in a lack of privacy that's practically
> alarming.  I've been doing realtime chat since ForumNet/ICB and the
> earliest days of IRC.  Private messages exist for a reason.
> 
> Also, there's someone named Orlando on, and I had no idea they were on, I'd
> just done a test message and started this email.  I went to flip back to
> Firefox to check something about the page and saw a reply.  Which brings us
> to the lack of a "/who" type listing in a column somewhere that makes it
> extremely useless because you can't even tell who's there unless they're
> actively talking--again, going back to the lack of privacy.  If you were
> talking about something and then someone comes in, they can just lurk there
> totally unannounced and you can't even watch what you say.  Not that I'm in
> the habit of talking behind people's backs, but this total lack of
> awareness is simply unacceptable in a chat system.
> 
> There's also a little higher latency than I'd expect, probably due to the
> polling nature of the interface.  That, or it's NPH-based with a higher
> wait time on push than I'd expect.
> 
> There's also really bad (and probably poorly done, if the display is any
> indication) escaping of single quotes, which is illustrated in the output
> of "that\'s" for instance, in the chat.  If it's not bothering to unquote
> it for redisplay, it makes me wonder what's going on behind the scenes and
> just how the security is or isn't for SQL injection.  That's like poor
> man's injection protection right there, and done half-arsedly at that.  You
> can read up on SQL injection online and find out why just escaping ' is not
> the sole solution.  It's still possible to break, especially with
> permutations of combinations of special characters.
> 
> The chat area also eats messages over a predefined length, yet has no JS in
> place to prevent you exceeding your "packet segment length", which is like
> Chat User Interface Programming 101.
> 
> There are any number of packages that do IRC-style (or even -good- IM
> style) chat.  It's unfortunate that you haven't implemented one of them.
> 
> If you're actually writing this and need to debug it, FireBug pointed one
> of these out to me:
> 
> [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80040111
> (NS_ERROR_NOT_AVAILABLE) [nsIXMLHttpRequest.status]" nsresult: "0x80040111
> (NS_ERROR_NOT_AVAILABLE)" location: "JS frame :: http://www.fpgroups.com/chatroom/chatRoomServer.js :: anonymous :: line 60" data: no]
> [Break on this error] if (xo.status == 200) {
> 
> > As far as smilies and commands are two things I need to work on.  For now,
> > I am not requiring logins or valid user IDs.  A name and the time to chat
> > is all that's required.
> 
> Forget smileys entirely.  Useless and distracting.
> 
> Commands...unless /msg (/m) and /who (/w) are two of them, I'm not seeing a
> point.  
> 
> The basics aren't even covered in terms of the persistent user interface.
> I wouldn't go thinking about esoteric expansions.
> 
> > You input will be appreciated!
> 
> I dunno how much you'll appreciate this, but it's all honestly true, IMNSHO.
> 
> I'd highly suggest looking into something more functional.  I can -not- see
> using that for more than about 5 minutes, in an emergency, if it was the
> absolute last option available to reach someone--and then only to ask them
> to call me.  Frankly, that's what email is for.
> 
>  I'm sorry, but I've been doing realtime chat since 1989 and it is a
> horrible thing to have to tell someone that I'd rather use AOL's IM than
> their chat software because AIM is more robust.  It is, however, true in
> this case.
> 
> Absolutely nothing personal about it, Jose.  You're trying
> to do a good thing here, but that software is so wholly
> underpowered/underfeatured/buggy, it's not even funny.  I'd look into using
> an IRC-based solution with a Java front end--or even CGI-IRC (perl-based
> with NPH).  You could host the channel on FreeNode.  I say this because
> the features are already there, there isn't a security/privacy issue,
> etc...basically every issue I've put forth should already be addressed, and
> you can be up and running in under an hour.  It would possibly take a day
> or few to knock this current incarnation into usable shape.
>

Farlight,

Nothing you can mention is absolutely bug free and 110% guaranteed to satisfy 
every user.  I know it is pretty raw and in massive need of work.  I will not
use any of the solutions you suggest simply because I rather write the code,
own the code, control the code, do as I please with the code.  Most importantly,
understand the code.

I am not trying to replicate any IM, AOL, Google Chat, Yahoo Chat, nor any of 
these long time running chat rooms you are so fun of.  

As far as glitches or bugs, even filePro is not free of those  :), let me not
get started with *NIX, WIN, Perl, and the 100s of other OSes and world famous
applications ...

You are a tough cookie to please (if not impossible).  I would not expect you
to ever like anything written by anyone but yourself.  I did say it was 'raw'.
As per privacy, what privacy?  It is an open chat room.  If you want to have a
private conversation, pick up he phone or meet at your local park.  The site
itself is meant to be a communal site, not meant for two people to lock themselves
in a private chat room.  That in itself goes against the very principal I am 
trying to work on "unity" and "openly share" with all.

As per the error, I visit some of the web's most famous sites and I get them 
there too ... and they have $$$$$$$$$ (those are Billions) to fund these sites.
Following your advise, I will move forward, modify it slowly and steadily and
hopefully, it will grow to a fully functional, lovable, fast, friendly and very
popular chat room.

You will be missed the days you do not log on and for the 23Hrs 55Min remaining
on the days you do   :)


Regards,

---
Jose Lerebours
954  559  7186
http://www.fpgroups.com