Tom Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Roy T. Fielding ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > It wasn't lost in the traffic. We can't use this change in 1.3.x because
> > it would break binary compatibility due to the structure changes. We can
> > try to do something like it in 2.0.x, but that tree uses a completely
> > different method of timeout on send and receive. Someone should check
> > to see if those values are separately configurable.
> >
> > Thanks for the patch in any case,
>
> Okay, good enough reason. At least you didn't say it was a dumb idea.
> I'll take a look at 2.0 - I like fine-grained timeout control.
Please do look into getting it into 2.0... it sounds like a nice
enhancement.
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
