On 8 Jun 2003, Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
regarding librsync... It is still in sort-of-active development on
SourceForge by a variety of developers... a new release is waiting in
CVS for me to finally get around to releasing it, but I'm busy on a big
contract at the moment so
On 12 Jun 2003, jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mind you, that means making the server lightweight with the
client doing all the logic and a nearly stateless connection.
Much like my earlier post on this thread posited.
I was wondering today if that would make it easier to gain confidence
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:25 am, Martin Pool wrote:
That could be a pretty nice thing. We use little rsync shares on
workstations here for sharing files, and I know some people do the
same with FTP.
What aside from SLP would make this more useful?
On 12 Jun 2003, Brad Hards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:25 am, Martin Pool wrote:
That could be a pretty nice thing. We use little rsync shares on
workstations here for sharing files, and I know some people do the
same with FTP.
What aside from SLP
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 10:34:18AM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 12 Jun 2003, Brad Hards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why run this _only_ over TCP? Obviously you don't want to re-invent TCP/IP
error handling, but the protocol shouldn't rely on such a system. File
transfer can potentially run
On 12 Jun 2003, jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leave the communications protocol to the communications
layer. You don't save anything by coding reordering and
retransmission at the packet level; that is infrastructure.
Connectionless is fine. Lightweight sessions is better. If
you
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:25:06PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 12 Jun 2003, jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leave the communications protocol to the communications
layer. You don't save anything by coding reordering and
retransmission at the packet level; that is infrastructure.
On 11 Jun 2003, Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 13:59, Martin Pool wrote:
On 11 Jun 2003, Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The vcdiff standard is available as RFC3284, and Josh is listed as one
of the authors.
Yes, I've just been reading that.
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 16:13, Martin Pool wrote:
On 11 Jun 2003, Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 13:59, Martin Pool wrote:
[...]
On 11 Jun 2003, Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I forget if I saw this in Tridge's thesis, but I definitely noticed that
On 10 Jun 2003, Brad Hards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep. Also, I was playing with the idea of rsync with Service Location Protocol
to use as a replacement for the crappy practice of sharing data over floppy
disks. The rough concept was that each machine had a shared directory, which
you
On 11 Jun 2003, Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The vcdiff standard is available as RFC3284, and Josh is listed as one
of the authors.
Yes, I've just been reading that.
I seem to remember that it was around as an Internet-Draft when I
started, but it didn't seem clear that it would
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 13:59, Martin Pool wrote:
On 11 Jun 2003, Donovan Baarda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The vcdiff standard is available as RFC3284, and Josh is listed as one
of the authors.
Yes, I've just been reading that.
I seem to remember that it was around as an Internet-Draft
12 matches
Mail list logo
