On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 08:19:05PM +0300, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > 2008/1/17, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 04:07:26PM +0300, Dmitry Kurochkin wrote: > > > 2008/1/17, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > What changes did you have to make for curl pipelining? These are > > > > changes in > > > > libcurl itself? > > > > > > Yes, these are changes for "better" (current pipelining option is > > > pretty useless) pipelining in libcurl. Here are 2 threads on this > > > topic: > > > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.curl.library/17197 > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.curl.library/17378 > > > > Oh yay, so you're now an expert on how pipelining works in libcurl! :) Any > > chance we can get something like priority queuing? (Now that you know the > > code better...) > > I am not sure priority is needed in libcurl. But I plan to implement > it at darcs level as you proposed earlier. > > Idea is to have a pipe length limit in darcs, we download no more than > this limit at a time. Darcs stores a list of urls which were requested > for download, but not yet passed to libwww/curl. > When new url is requested for download we just append it to this list > to beginning or to end depending on priority.
Yeah, that sounds good. I was just thinking that if it was easy (and wise) to implement in libcurl, that might be a good option. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
