Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The number of buffers would be 1:1 with the number of files being > downloaded. Aggregating the data is the problem I was trying to avoid. > Because the downloads all finish at different times it makes sorting > the data difficult. > > When you say "sorting the data", do you mean that literally?
No. > What I would think of doing is simply looking thru the data > assembling the contents that add up to one file, and saving it out > when it is complete. The advantage of multiple buffers is that the downloaded files can be viewed straight away, with no further copying. Some files could even be viewed *while* they were still downloading. A bit like a browser does with image files. > I agree that downloading a lot of files will be silly. Perhaps I will > set up a pool of 20 or so buffers for downloads and block or error > when the pool is exhausted. > > That should work, if it is ok to do only 20 transfers in parallel. > It should block, not error, when all are in use. Why? If this code were an elisp library I think I would expect it to error... and then user code could choose to block on repeated calls with a time delay. Wouldn't that be better? (Sorry, this is an important question to me, since I am going to implement this code). Nic _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
