[JDEV] autoupdate

[Thomas Muldowney]

I'm not sure that's necessary, and potentially part of the problem.
Like Joe said, a HTTP HEAD works pretty good for them, and it's
drastically more simple than the old method =)  Every case could
potentially have it's own method based on their server resources and
what not.

--temas


On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 02:05:21AM +0100, Richard Dobson wrote:
> Then maybe what should be done is defining an informational standard 
> for doing it so people starting out dont have to work it out themselves 
> and have something to start from.
> 
> Richard
> 
> On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 06:36  pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
> >I second the motion.
> >
> >Peter
> >
> >--
> >Peter Saint-Andre
> >Jabber Software Foundation
> >http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> >
> >On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> >
> >>The only reason I can remember was to have on central place to look 
> >>at,
> >>but we quickly learned what a mess that is.  I would say I'm in favor 
> >>of
> >>people dealing with it themselves.
> >>
> >>--temas
> >>
> >>
> >>On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 01:00:24PM -0600, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> >>>In Exodus, we've implemented both the (relatively lightly documented)
> >>>current way, as well as a simple HTTP HEAD.  The HEAD approach seems 
> >>>to work
> >>>pretty well... Can someone remind me of the reasons why the more 
> >>>complex
> >>>protocol is necessary, since autoupdate is so similar to the HTTP 
> >>>caching
> >>>problem?
> >>>
> >>>-- 
> >>>Joe Hildebrand
> >>>
> >>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/attachments/20021007/e48d9418/attachment-0002.pgp>