> but maybe in future release we could use other HTTP headers (i.e. cookies, > language, etc.) and a pre-emptive head could save time in a initial dig as > well.
Yep.. even on an initial dig HEAD is a good idea.. unless the website is almost all HTML pages with few images... which seems pretty pie-in-the-sky at this point. > 2) I share the library with ht://Check which massively uses this option as > it has to retrieve any document - images too - and a HEAD call could save a > lot of time in the initial dig. I'd love to maintain the logic of the net > library the more similar possible. > Please let me know if the Retriever and Document classes changes make sense > to you guys and I will modify the code. I think what we've had here is informative debate. You as much as anyone else wrote the networking code, so for me it's your decision. I think the new TRUE default is fine. If you've perfected this logic in ht://Check, then we should probably consider syncing with your net code after 3.2 is done. Thanks. Neal Richter Knowledgebase Developer RightNow Technologies, Inc. Customer Service for Every Web Site Office: 406-522-1485 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ ht://Dig Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List information (subscribe/unsubscribe, etc.) https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/htdig-dev
