I think what we've had here is informative debate. You as much as anyone else wrote the networking code, so for me it's your decision. I think the new TRUE default is fine.
OK. Any other opinions?
If you've perfected this logic in ht://Check, then we should probably consider syncing with your net code after 3.2 is done.
So ... is it ok for you guys if I go on with the Retriever, Document and HtHTTP patch as suggested in the previous e-mails?
Basically, in order to perform always a HEAD call during an incremental indexing, I need to store the information in both the Retriever and Document class. Is that right for you? In particular, I suggest this enum:
enum RetrieverType {
Retriever_Initial,
Retriever_Incremental
};and then change the constructor this way:
Retriever(RetrieverLog flags = Retriever_noLog, RetrieverType t = Retriever_Initial);
In 'htdig.cc', we check whether the dig is an initial dig or not and:
if(!initial) // Switch the retriever type to Incremental
retriever_type = Retriever_Incremental;therefore, when we instantiate the main retriever object, we just simply add this:
Retriever retriever(Retriever_logUrl, retriever_type);
Please let me know.
Ciao and thanks,
-Gabriele
--
Gabriele Bartolini: Web Programmer, ht://Dig & IWA/HWG Member, ht://Check maintainer
Current Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.prato.linux.it/~gbartolini | ICQ#129221447
> "Leave every hope, ye who enter!", Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy, The Inferno
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email sponsored by: Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo
The Event For Linux Datacenter Solutions & Strategies in The Enterprise Linux in the Boardroom; in the Front Office; & in the Server Room http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
_______________________________________________
ht://Dig Developer mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List information (subscribe/unsubscribe, etc.)
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
