Subject: Re: [boost] [ann] Urdl - a library for downloading web content
From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-18 08:14:36
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Christopher Kohlhoff<chris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Jose wrote:
>> * The #1 feature should be supporting http 1.1 well (also https). Many
>> libaries provide a http 1.0 implementation but fail short of
>> supporting the many options http provides (I know this is a huge
>> undertaking!) . At this point I don't see the value of supporting file
>> (or planning to support ftp).
> Sometimes I need to use them :) Seriously though, the power of working with
> URLs is their polymorphism, so the more protocols the better IMHO.
Yes, it's a matter of priorities. I think It is better a feature-rich
http support than tons of half-supported protocols.
>> * It would be great to clarify why you based the design on a buffered
>> stream (below are my perceived pros/cons):
>> - easy to add support for new protocols with read_until
>> - easier header parsing
>> - increased implementation complexitiy with istreambuf
>> - Maybe small performance penalty
> I'm not sure which buffered stream you're referring to here. Can you
I refer to the overall design keeping a streambuf vs a state-machine
just parsing the header in one go.