At 12:20 AM -0700 2/8/02, Neal Richter wrote: >One real long term advantage to using httrack or something similar would >be to offload the forward code maintenance of some of the htdig transport >code to another project. Leaving htdig developers more time to work on >other features. Of course this is an over simplification, choosing a >quickly changing and complicated site-copier could prove to be painful.
We looked at this possibility at the beginning of 3.2 development. At the time, the major possibilities were libwww from W3C, libghttp from GNOME, and swiping code from curl which had just appeared. I was quite happy with the idea of using libwww since that's obviously well-maintained. The conclusion was basically that this was a bit of overkill and none of them (at least at that point) had particularly clean or necessarily fixed APIs. But keep in mind that Gabriele does use htnet/ for ht://Check and certainly some features and bug-testing occur on both sides. I'm not aware of other projects using the code, but it's possible. -Geoff _______________________________________________ htdig-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
