On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:02 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn, > >> I was wondering if someone could expound a bit on that approach, and >> why they chose to do a tar stream. >> >> The developer I talked to suggested that instead of doing a tar stream >> from the server, we could simply allow the client to perform HTTP/1.1 >> pipeline requests for each individual file. > > We wrote filelist as a way to work around the lack of support for > HTTP/1.1 features in the current Python libraries. At least the last > time I looked, urllib and httplib didn't have any meaningful support for > pipelining HTTP requests. The situation was similar for the libraries > we employed on the server side. Instead of trying to write our own http > library, we just put together existing Python components that did work. > >> After looking into this a little bit, it looks like the change would >> be from this: >> * establish connection >> * get url_1 >> * readresponse url_1 >> * close connection >> >> to this: >> * establish connection >> * get url_1 >> * readresponse url_1 >> * get url_2 >> * readresponse url_2 >> * get url_n >> * readresponse url_n >> * close connection > > If you want performance, I'd change it to this instead: > > * establish connection > * get url_1 > * get url_2 > * get url_N > * readresponse url_1 > * readresponse url_2 > * readresponse url_N > * keep connection alive until client exits download stage
Yes, that's right. Sorry. -- Shawn Walker "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
