Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:15:18 +0930 From: "Wilkinson, Alex" <alex.wilkinson@dsto.defence.gov.au> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding portsnap to the base system Message-ID: <20050817084518.GG25467@squash.dsto.defence.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <42FCA675.7090300@freebsd.org> References: <42F62C5F.6000609@freebsd.org> <20050807.101746.68985623.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F636BE.3020906@freebsd.org> <8664ub4bp3.fsf@xps.des.no> <42FCA675.7090300@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
0n Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 06:39:01AM -0700, Colin Percival wrote:
>Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>> Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> writes:
>>>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.
>
>Well, err... go ahead, then. I'm not going to tell the author of a
>library that his library can't be modified to include a feature; all
>I can do is point out that my best efforts were insufficient.
>
>I can see that it would be very easy to implement _persistent_ HTTP,
>but implementing _pipelined_ HTTP is quite a different matter...
erm ... what is meant by "_pipelined_ HTTP" ?
- aW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050817084518.GG25467>