On Friday 10 February 2012 19:25:04 [email protected] wrote: > The same change would be required at the QNetworkAccessManager level, as > there is no point applying flow control at the socket and having unbounded > memory allocations in the QNetworkReply.
I think it might make sense to implement flow control in QNAM but not on socket. This way applications using the high level API get protection from this error and applications using the low level API have to handle this issue themselves. That is, if we choose to implement it. Which I'm not convinced we should, I assume this behaviour is documented(if not, it should) and therefore not really a bug. Do we have any/many reports of this issue? Gastal _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
