Sam E. wrote: > > Added the code, recompiled, tested. (9min) > > http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/https-loop-fixed.gif > > > If Michael likes how I did it, look for the fix in the next release. > >Thanks, Glenn. But this brings up an important point. If this was so >easy to fix, then why wasn't it done previously and already included?
Two reasons: 1. Michael might not have time to verify the code others send in. 2. Personally, I would not use the aproach used by Glenn, it does work for these two protocols, but what we need is to be able to handle all unknown protocols (ie. what to do with bernie://bernie.arachne.cz/ ?) >An orgainized and co-ordinated effort could make major improvements >in Arachne, as your work continues to demonstrate. Correct. Hopefully Michael will out together a RCS/CVS so we can do that. >I'm just judging from appearances. It almost appears that Michael has >lost interest in his creation. I don't think so. But he, as all of us, have little time to spend on things that aren't vitaly important. I've had to move down Arachne development on my list of things to do after working (I work 60%), studying (100%) and a new girlfriend. There are only so many hours on a day. >Please correct me if I am wrong. But if something can be fixed in >nine minutes, why would it go unfixed for months on end except for >lack of attention or interest? Little or no time to spend on fixing it. //Bernie
