I'm not sure that's necessary, and potentially part of the problem. Like Joe said, a HTTP HEAD works pretty good for them, and it's drastically more simple than the old method =) Every case could potentially have it's own method based on their server resources and what not.
--temas On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 02:05:21AM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote: > Then maybe what should be done is defining an informational standard > for doing it so people starting out dont have to work it out themselves > and have something to start from. > > Richard > > On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 06:36 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > >I second the motion. > > > >Peter > > > >-- > >Peter Saint-Andre > >Jabber Software Foundation > >http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php > > > >On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote: > > > >>The only reason I can remember was to have on central place to look > >>at, > >>but we quickly learned what a mess that is. I would say I'm in favor > >>of > >>people dealing with it themselves. > >> > >>--temas > >> > >> > >>On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:00:24PM -0600, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > >>>In Exodus, we've implemented both the (relatively lightly documented) > >>>current way, as well as a simple HTTP HEAD. The HEAD approach seems > >>>to work > >>>pretty well... Can someone remind me of the reasons why the more > >>>complex > >>>protocol is necessary, since autoupdate is so similar to the HTTP > >>>caching > >>>problem? > >>> > >>>-- > >>>Joe Hildebrand > >>> > >>>
msg07259/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
