On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 22:33 +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, Darryl Green wrote:
>
> I don't propose anything since I don't think anyone is actually interested
> enough or working on any implementation. And as I said before, I'm not even
> educated enough on the protocol parts to make any qualified design decisions
> for a future possible implmentation. Let's deal with that when the time comes.
> If ever.
>
Ok. I'm not in any hurry to try an impl.

> >> There's also the little quirk that protocols ON TOP of HTTP really doesn't
> >> need to be implemented within libcurl, but could also quite easily and
> >> effectively instead be written as a user of libcurl. So I'm not sure I
> >> agree that HTTP-based protocols need to be support by libcurl itself.
> >
> > Ok. I agree. And this explains the lack of a URI syntax - it is particular
> > use of data transferred from a perfectly normal http resource that happens
> > to have content-type: application/x-zsync to drive the retrieval of data
> > (via range requests) from another utterly normal HTTP resource.
> >
> > However, is there any objection to packaging such an "on top of" protocol
> > with libcurl (with options to include/exclude it from the build)?
>
> I suppose you're asking this now as someone who's actually willing and
> intending to work on making this reality? I just want it clarified and spelled
> out, so that we don't just waste time talking about theoretical issues.
>

Well - no need to waste time. If anyone is prepared to offer input - be
it objections, expressions of interest, better ideas or existing
solutions that great. If not, that is fine too. And yes, I am interested
in making it a reality - don't hold your breath though. What I'm not
interested in is duplication of effort/creating an orphan child of
zsync.
 
> First out, I don't want to such decisions on my own like a dictator but I
> prefer to hear what regulars on this list etc have to say. We're a project and
> community and want to allow everyone to contribute their ideas about where we
> go.
>

I didn't mean to ask for a decision. Ideas are good.

> I don't think over-HTTP is a final reason to exclude something from libcurl.
>

Cool. And thanks for spending as much time on this "speculative" topic
as you have.

Regards
Darryl
Received on 2009-09-02