Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 06:26:07 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: Joseph Mallett <jmallett@NewGold.NET> Cc: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/ftp fetch.c Message-ID: <20010830132612.4952B3E2F@bazooka.unixfreak.org> In-Reply-To: <20010830130536.A75112@NewGold.NET>; from jmallett@NewGold.NET on "Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:05:37 %2B0000"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joseph Mallett <jmallett@NewGold.NET> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 12:33:39PM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 17:57:35 -0700, Mike Barcroft wrote: > > > mike 2001/08/29 17:57:35 PDT > > > > > > Modified files: > > > usr.bin/ftp fetch.c > > > Log: > > > Add support for HTTP/1.1 name-based virtual hosts. Also, use > > > > Are you sure that fetch can handle HTTP/1.1 "206 Partial Content" response > > (which may happens if you issue HTTP/1.1 request)? > > > > Currently, I believe it only reacts to "200" (or so a header leads me to > think), I'll go through the standard and read about this and see if I can > make a patch, and if one is needed. Why does ftp(1) have HTTP capability, anyway? I think the only reason someone would use it instead of fetch(1) is when they want an interactive interface, which ftp(1) provides for FTP, but not HTTP. If it really does need HTTP capability for some reason, it should really use fetch(3). Why duplicate code when it's not necessary? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010830132612.4952B3E2F>