-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
L Walsh wrote:
> Micah Cowan wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you mean about the linux thing; there are many
>> instances of runtime loadable modules on Linux. dlopen() and friends are
>> the standard way of doing this on any Unix kernel flavor.
>
>
Micah Cowan wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean about the linux thing; there are many
instances of runtime loadable modules on Linux. dlopen() and friends are
the standard way of doing this on any Unix kernel flavor.
I _thought_ so, but when I asked a distro why they didn't
use this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Micah Cowan wrote:
> Tony Lewis wrote:
>> Perhaps both versions can include multi-threaded support in their
>> core version, but the lite version would never invoke
>> multi-threading.
>
> I mentioned this in the first post as well. The main problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Lewis wrote:
> Micah Cowan wrote:
>
>> Keeping a single Wget and using runtime libraries (which we were
>> terming "plugins") was actually the original concept (there's
>> mention of this in the first post of this thread, actually); the
>> issu
On 11/2/07, Tony Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Micah Cowan wrote:
>
> > Keeping a single Wget and using runtime libraries (which we were terming
> > "plugins") was actually the original concept (there's mention of this in
> > the first post of this thread, actually); the issue is that there ar
Micah Cowan wrote:
> Keeping a single Wget and using runtime libraries (which we were terming
> "plugins") was actually the original concept (there's mention of this in
> the first post of this thread, actually); the issue is that there are
> core bits of functionality (such as the multi-stream su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
L Walsh wrote:
> Honest -- I hadn't read all the threads before my post...
>
> Great ideas Micah! :-)
>
> On the idea of 2 wgets -- there is a "clever" way to get
> by with 1. Put the "optional" functionality into separate
> run-time loadable file
Honest -- I hadn't read all the threads before my post...
Great ideas Micah! :-)
On the idea of 2 wgets -- there is a "clever" way to get
by with 1. Put the "optional" functionality into separate
run-time loadable files. SGI's Unix (and MS Windows) do this.
The "small wget" then checks to see
On 10/31/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Tony Godshall wrote:
> > On 10/30/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >> Hash: SHA256
> >>
> >> Tony Godshall wrote:
> >>> Perhaps the little
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
> On 10/30/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>>
>> Tony Godshall wrote:
>>> Perhaps the little wget could be called "wg". A quick google and
>>> wikipedia search sho
On 10/30/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Tony Godshall wrote:
> > Perhaps the little wget could be called "wg". A quick google and
> > wikipedia search shows no real namespace collisions.
>
> To reduce confusion/upgrade problems, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Josh Williams wrote:
> Although the code might
> suck for those trying to read it, I think it could be very great with
> a little regular maintenance.
Oh, I think it's probably already earned a reputation for greatness at
this point. But yeah, it ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> I guess I'm not the man to ask nor comment this a lot, but look what I
> found:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/wget@sunsite.dk/msg01129.html
>
> I've always thought and I still believe that wget's power and most
> apprec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tony Godshall wrote:
> Perhaps the little wget could be called "wg". A quick google and
> wikipedia search shows no real namespace collisions.
To reduce confusion/upgrade problems, I would think we would want to
ensure that the "traditional"/little
On 10/26/07, Josh Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/26/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And, of course, when I say "there would be two Wgets", what I really
> > mean by that is that the more exotic-featured one would be something
> > else entirely than a Wget, and would have
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Micah Cowan wrote:
The obvious solution to that is to use c-ares, which does exactly that:
handle DNS queries asynchronously. Actually, I didn't know this until just
now, but c-ares was split off from ares to meet the needs of the curl
developers. :)
We needed an asynch
On 10/26/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, of course, when I say "there would be two Wgets", what I really
> mean by that is that the more exotic-featured one would be something
> else entirely than a Wget, and would have a separate name.
I think the idea of having two Wgets is goo
17 matches
Mail list logo
