Here's another potential solution: Instead of writing a full-fledged HTTP server, just write a cheap one that understands simple GET requests and simple upload requests. That way, you'll have compatibility with a standard (HTTP), but the implementation won't be much more complex than a simple socket. What do you think?
Dave Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Well, i personally have problems to find a free http server that does > has not any open source license, is not a dll and supports upload. > Therefor I would have to write one myself. And that would be much > more work then doing a simple socket connection to stream the file > (as described in my jabberfs:iq:filetransfer protocol). > > In addition to that if i would find such a lib there is still the question, > would it support several instances with not too much memory > usage with different ports/passwords for each person that is > downloading, would your application get information about what ppl > currently download what file, with what kind of speed they do it.... > > Doing such a simple socket connection would allow you to get > these information on the fly and abort downloads very easy, > password protect them very easy (because you do the filetransfer > negotiation with XML stream). > > I can accept the opinion ppl (esspecially those on linux) that they > want http and such stuff because indeed this offers interesting stuff > like storing the files on servers, doing the PASS thing and who > knows what other kind of stuff would be possible. I would like to get > my client working befor i start writing my own http server. Could > add this as a new feature then... > > Why canīt we have those two standart, http for more complex > filetransactions and the easy socket filetransfer for simple client > 2client filetransfer?? > > ;) Edrin > > > Richard Dobson wrote: > > > > >You dont need HTTP or FTP because they are way too bloated as I have already > > >said, I come to this conclusion because they all have far more features than > > >are necessary, what other than resuming is really needed ?? > > > > > Sure, name some of these extra features which we don't need > > > > > > > >The method I mentioned is nice and simple and does the job and can easily > > >support resuming using the control messages I mentioned that can be passed > > >along the xml stream, now although there wont be a library around for this > > >why would you need one, I dont know about anyone else but it would not take > > >me anymore than 2 maybe 3 hours to code that in C++. Instead of just using > > >other protocols just because they are there and trying to do a hack around > > > > > <snip remainder of run-on sentence> > > I don't understand how using file-transfer protocols to transfer files > > is a big hack. Please explain this. > > > > -David Waite > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > jdev mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > jdev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
