Derek Martin said:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Paul Lussier wrote:
>
> > HTTP adds nothing more than convenience to the command-line
> > challenged. It's slow and bulky.
>
> HUH? The HTTP protocol is neither! It's a very small, lightwieght
> protocol. What are you talking about?
>
> This can easily be demonstrated by using telnet:
>
> $ telnet www.yoursite.com 80
> Trying yourip...
> Connected to www.yoursite.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> GET /some/path/in/the/webserver/heirarchy HTTP/1.0
>
> [spewage follows]
>
> The protocol itself is sufficiently compact that a web server can be
> written in just a few hundred lines of code. Please explain what you mean
> by "slow and clunky" as I can find no evidence of that.
I've yet to see a good command line client where it's easy to type the stuff
in, or bash script (and yes, I've used and like lynx). Mainly because HTTP
was designed from the get-go as an interactive means of transfering small
files between clients. HTTP1.1 adds state info, but it's still not designed
for the bulk transfer of large files. That's OK (IMHO), because FTP does the
bulk transfer very well (and was designed for it).
Also, it's not a matter of how few lines of code the server can be written in,
it's what kinds of transfers the protocol is optimized for.
Also note that that telnet session of yours is non-secure (which is what we
started talking about). HTTPS is more secure, as it runs the connection over
SSL.
jeff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9739 fax:978.446.9470
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today: hungry puppy n.
Syn. slopsucker.
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
