From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 12 11:49:46 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D123C16A41F; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:49:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5673043D7D; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:49:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EEE861C4; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:49:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from xps.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by tim.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC6161C1; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:49:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by xps.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4609133D44; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:49:28 +0200 (CEST) To: Colin Percival References: <42F62C5F.6000609@freebsd.org> <20050807.101746.68985623.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F636BE.3020906@freebsd.org> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:49:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: <42F636BE.3020906@freebsd.org> (Colin Percival's message of "Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:28:46 -0700") Message-ID: <8664ub4bp3.fsf@xps.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Tests: ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Learn: ham X-Spam-Score: -5.3/5.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on tim.des.no Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding portsnap to the base system X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 11:49:46 -0000 Colin Percival writes: > M. Warner Losh wrote: > > Is there some reason you've reinvated fetch as well? What does > > phttpget do that fetch(1) or fetch(3) doesn't? The only thing that > > looks like it might is pipelining mode, which would be better in the > > base fetch program, imho. > Yes, pipelined HTTP. Basically, I spent six months on-and-off, and > at least two weeks of actual work, trying to fit pipelined HTTP into > fetch(3)... but the design of that library is all around the idea of > fetching a single file at once. In the end I gave up and wrote my > own code (phttpget) in under 24 hours. You are mistaken. Pipelined HTTP can be implemented in libfetch with the same ease (and the same limitations) as FTP connection caching, which was included from the start. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no