Hi Jack, Jack Kamm <jackk...@gmail.com> writes:
> If we do proceed in this direction, I'd suggest replacing the current > cache mechanism entirely -- I don't see a good reason to maintain 2 > solutions to the same problem. Also, we could combine the "download" and > "cache" options into a single implementation, making them synonyms for > backwards compatibility. I just added a call for help about this. Thanks!
