On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 12:21:03PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It was a little more direct, originally, storing the interval with its
> constructor; I removed that as the interval can change with each call.
> I might put it back and update the interval with Reconfig, which would
> make it more s
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:44:23AM +, Jonas Larsson wrote:
> Hello Alexander,
>
> Thanks for a really nice application (LFTP) :)
>
> The most secure ftpd around (as I think) is pure-ftpd (http://pureftpd.org/)
>
> and it has right now added support for the SFTP protocol. Unfortunately only
(responding to both)
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:09:46PM +0400, Alexey Khlyamkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:03:17PM +0400, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote:
> > Even if it were represented in such a way, nobody would like
> > 1970-01-01 00:00:01 for one-second time interval.
> One-second interv
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:03:17PM +0400, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote:
> Even if it were represented in such a way, nobody would like
> 1970-01-01 00:00:01 for one-second time interval.
One-second interval must be written as -00-00 00:00:01
(this is better human readable form for time interva
Hello Alexander,
Thanks for a really nice application (LFTP) :)
The most secure ftpd around (as I think) is pure-ftpd (http://pureftpd.org/)
and it has right now added support for the SFTP protocol. Unfortunately only
(as I know) openssh supports that protocol under UNIX. :(
If you could take
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 12:30:54PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:07:45PM +0400, Alexey Khlyamkov wrote:
> > I decided to agree with Glenn at the first time. But after some
> > thinking became to the following. Time and time difference have the
> > same meaning in phisica
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 08:07:45PM +0400, Alexey Khlyamkov wrote:
> I decided to agree with Glenn at the first time. But after some
> thinking became to the following. Time and time difference have the
> same meaning in phisical terms. But lftp use term "time" as calendar
> term but not phisical o
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 02:24:49PM +0400, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote:
> > I don't see where the problem is, this is a pretty standard operation (and a
> > fairly textbook class.) It's the same as BSD timeradd/timersub, just with C++
> > syntax.
>
> I have applied the patch, although I don't part
> > > Time difference is not quite the same as time. Another class? Is it worth
> > > the trouble? Time difference in milliseconds is enough for lftp, I think.
> >
> > Er? Time stores either a time or an amount of time, just like time_t
> > and timeval do. A difference of two times is an amount
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 03:43:16AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:50:56AM +0400, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote:
> > Time difference is not quite the same as time. Another class? Is it worth
> > the trouble? Time difference in milliseconds is enough for lftp, I think.
>
> Er
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:50:56AM +0400, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote:
> Time difference is not quite the same as time. Another class? Is it worth
> the trouble? Time difference in milliseconds is enough for lftp, I think.
Er? Time stores either a time or an amount of time, just like time_t
and
11 matches
Mail list logo