I can add something about this to the upcoming Jabber Client Development Guide -- I'll chat with pgm about how he does it in Exodus.
Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote: > 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 > > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
