* Jeff Trawick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Tom Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * Roy T. Fielding ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > It wasn't lost in the traffic. We can't use this change in 1.3.x because > > > it would break binary compatibility due to the structure changes. We can > > > try to do something like it in 2.0.x, but that tree uses a completely > > > different method of timeout on send and receive. Someone should check > > > to see if those values are separately configurable. > > > > > > Thanks for the patch in any case, > > > > Okay, good enough reason. At least you didn't say it was a dumb idea. > > I'll take a look at 2.0 - I like fine-grained timeout control. > > Please do look into getting it into 2.0... it sounds like a nice > enhancement.
Thanks. Patch against 2.0 cvs already posted to the list :) Tom. -- .^. .-------------------------------------------------------. /V\ | Tom Gilbert, London, England | http://linuxbrit.co.uk | /( )\ | Open Source/UNIX consultant | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ^^-^^ `-------------------------------------------------------'
