Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2008-05-14 > 11:21:05]: > >> > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB. >> >> However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to resume downloads. >> Thus, downloading anything bigger than that in more than one go has the >> potential of a lot of waste in retries (hence BW & time). >> >> I know, it's a spurious reason since downloads in progress could be saved >> somewhere else until completion... but still is a reason for now. >> > > They are good reasons why we shouldn't implement download-resuming.
Could you please elaborate?
