Tom Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Roy T. Fielding ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > It wasn't lost in the traffic. We can't use this change in 1.3.x because > > it would break binary compatibility due to the structure changes. We can > > try to do something like it in 2.0.x, but that tree uses a completely > > different method of timeout on send and receive. Someone should check > > to see if those values are separately configurable. > > > > Thanks for the patch in any case, > > Okay, good enough reason. At least you didn't say it was a dumb idea. > I'll take a look at 2.0 - I like fine-grained timeout control.
Please do look into getting it into 2.0... it sounds like a nice enhancement. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...