On 17-Nov-03, Brett Handley wrote: > Hi again,
> It would be great if Ashley and Carl could run this new test against > their servers. This one is in source code form rather than a patch. Works fine with all my three servers Brett. Good work. So, should I make this my perminant ftp patch? I'm losing track of which is which. :) Carl. > ---What I've done > Romano wrote (some days back): >> If LIST is not implemented, the server should return an error, not >> an > empty list of files. > I think this is entirely reasonable, so in this latest FTP scheme > I've changed the logic to use NLST only if parsing of LIST results > fails. That is, if nothing is returned successfully I consider that > an empty directory, if something is returned but our parse rules > fail then I use NLST. Because it is simpler, NLST is unlikely to > fail (if it is implemented on the server). If by chance both do > actually fail, then I raise an error. I've also factored out the > common logic as I see it into a separate function to see how LIST > and NLST are so similiar. > I've also merged the various patches added a little more network > logging and changed [error? catch value ] sequences to [error? try > [catch value]] pending Romano's comments on this error handling > strategy. > do http://www.codeconscious.com/ftp-testing/ftp-proposed.r > trace/net true > read ftp://.... > Regards, > Brett. -- Carl Read -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
