Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:39:01 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding portsnap to the base system Message-ID: <42FCA675.7090300@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <8664ub4bp3.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <42F62C5F.6000609@freebsd.org> <20050807.101746.68985623.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F636BE.3020906@freebsd.org> <8664ub4bp3.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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... Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42FCA675.7090300>