Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 13:49:28 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding portsnap to the base system Message-ID: <8664ub4bp3.fsf@xps.des.no> In-Reply-To: <42F636BE.3020906@freebsd.org> (Colin Percival's message of "Sun, 07 Aug 2005 09:28:46 -0700") References: <42F62C5F.6000609@freebsd.org> <20050807.101746.68985623.imp@bsdimp.com> <42F636BE.3020906@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8664ub4bp3.fsf>