< snip.... comment in nsFTPChannel reads: >
315 // If we're starting from the beginning, then its OK to use the cache,
316 // because the entire file must be there (the cache doesn't support
317 // partial entries yet)
isn't that outdated since http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=116365 was fixed?
should I file a bug about that?
well, the cache has always supported partial entries. bug 116365 was about making HTTP store partial documents in the cache. each protocol must know how to deal with partial cache entries. AFAIK FTP does not support partial cache entries. so, at most we should clean-up that comment to state something like "FTP, as a consumer of the cache, does not know how to store partial documents in the cache."
cc'ing bbaetz and dougt since they might have more to add...
darin
Well, here is what I remember....
If the FTP connection was aborted, we would remove the transaction from the cache. If we crash, we assume the entry in the cache isn't in a consistent state. So, partial entries in either case are ignored.
This basically means only pause and resume work in a session of the browser -- quiting mozilla leaves partial cache entries.
If you're going to fix things up, it would be a great thing to fix this too.
Doug Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc'ing the newsgroup -- spreading information as wide as I can.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
