Daniel Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> You can tell wget not to allow persistent connections using the
>> --no-http-keep-alive option, which should speed things up in your
>> case.
>
> That is not nice, and goes against recommendations in recent HTTP
> RFCs.
Wget is an HTTP/1.0 client, a
Hi,
In my last message I said "[have Wget] get the file by date and
always ignore the last modified date" and I meant to say 'always ignore
the content-lenghth' because I am not sending it. But Ian, you
understood what I meant anyway :-).
And after debugging it appears that Wget is working just
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Ian Abbott wrote:
> > The "proper" action (IMHO) would be to use a true HTTP/1.1 request and
> > thus most likely receive a chunked transfer-encoded data stream back,
> Does PHP do that?
PHP does that. With the help of Apache of course.
> > Surely it wouldn't be much differ
On 1 Feb 2002 at 8:17, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> You may count this mail as advocating for HTTP 1.1 support, yes! ;-)
I did write down some minimal requirements for HTTP/1.1 support on
a scrap of paper recently. It's probably still buried under the
more recent strata of crap on my desk somewhere!
On 1 Feb 2002 at 8:17, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Ian Abbott wrote:
> > The problem is that wget uses persistent connections by default if the
> > server supports them. As you are using --ignore-length, wget must wait for
> > more data will arrive while the connection is open.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Ian Abbott wrote:
> > The problem is, that my web pages are served up by php and the content
> > lengh is not defined. So as the manual states I use --ignore-length.
> > But when wget retrieves an image it slows right down, possibly because it
> > is ignoring the content-len
On 31 Jan 2002 at 9:48, Bruce BrackBill wrote:
> Thanks for your responce Ian. When I use it without
> --ignore-length option it appears that wget "SOMETIMES" ignores
> the last_modified_date OR wget says to itself ( hey, I see the
> file is older than the local copy, but hey, since the server
>
>From: "Ian Abbott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: "Bruce BrackBill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: timestamping content-length --ignore-length
>Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:24:11 -
>
>On 31 Jan 2002 at 8:41, Bruce BrackBi
On 31 Jan 2002 at 8:41, Bruce BrackBill wrote:
> The problem is, that my web pages are served up by php
> and the content lengh is not defined. So as the manual states
> I use --ignore-length. But when wget retrieves an image
> it slows right down, possibly because it is ignoring
> the content-
Hi,
If I understand timestamping corretly, wget will look at
the content-length header and if the length is different than
the local copy , wget will reget the web page even if the
the remote file is older/same_as the local copy.
The problem is, that my web pages are served up by php
and the con
10 matches
Mail list logo
