Le 19/09/2014 15:36, Daniel Stenberg a écrit :
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, KALLEL Mohamed wrote:
I want to add the support of sending http messages over UDP to libcurl.
What are you talking to in the other end? I know there have been talks
about doing HTTP over UDP but I'm curious about the implementation
situation among servers.
In fact I do not have a big idea about http protocol neither about http
over udp cases. But I see this request in the standard protocol TR-069
cwmp (Amendment 5) and in this standard they require to send HTTP
messages over UDP and they are not asking to expect answer from the server.
Ref of TR-069:
http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/download/TR-069_Amendment-5.pdf
(Annex M)
Please let me know if my patch is OK? and If you are going to merge
it to the mainline? and in what version will be delivered?
Let's take one step at a time and see where we end up!
First, you merged two rather independent changes into a single patch
and that's not a good idea. Especially since I strongly dislike the
second part - the DISABLE_RECEIVE thing. You need to provide a
convincing argument why we would want that.
You are right for the 2 patches issue. I will send you 2 separate
patches for that. For the DISABLE_RECEIVE, I used it because for my case
I really do not care if the server answer to my UDP message or not, So
that's wy I want to disable the receive part in the process.
Then, your patch doesn't come with any documentation or test cases
even though it introdces a new option (and we really can't have that
unless you have a really good excuse to avoid it). I take it you have
run your own tests against something and verified that this actually
works exactly like it does when using TCP? What happens when you send
(really) large requests?
For the documentation I can send you documentation with the next patch.
please provide to me a template of your documentation. For the tests, I
made test for my case and it works properly but for the libcurl test
cases, I really do not have idea neither exeprience with that
The name of the option. CURLOPT_UDP_CONNECT sounds like an oxymoron to
me. UDP doesn't "connect" at all in the first place. Your code
explicitly use this to send HTTP over UDP so shouldn't the option name
say that? Like for example CURLOPT_HTTP_OVER_UDP ? Or possibly if we
would allow it for other protocols too, CURLOPT_USE_UDP ?
CURLOPT_FORCE_UDP?
CURLOPT_FORCE_UDP sound good. It was the first name I choosed ;-)
Regards
MOHAMED Kallel
EasyCwmp maintainer
www.easycwmp.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://cool.haxx.se/list/listinfo/curl-library
Etiquette: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/etiquette.html
