On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 10:30:04PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
p37sitdu at lavabit.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:23:18PM +0000, Jeremy Henty wrote:
I wondered why "Save link as" silently failed on some of my local web pages if I had not already visited the link. It turns out they were "file:///" links and "Save link as" sends a download request which the CAPI silently ignores if the URL is not cached and is not handled by the downloads DPI. [...]
[...] Instead, Dillo could download files and pass them to downloads DPI. Downloads DPI then shows progress and saves files. As I understand, the idea is to have one window for all downloads across many copies of Dillo where progress can be shown and requests to cancel them can be passed to the right copy of Dillo.
I wonder what is the real benefit of a separate downloads DPI. Is it actually useful to have one downloads window for all Dillo processes?
I think downloading should not be done by downloads DPI: this way it have to support all the protocols Dillo and its plugins support. But tracking of downloads can be left there so we don't see the difference between two dillo processes and two dillo windows.
The downloads DPI is rather different from all the rest: it is the only one that links to FLTK and it doesn't send HTML back to Dillo. Do we really benefit from putting downloading in a separate process?
Cookies DPI doesn't send HTML too. Downloads and cookies are server DPIs, they are used to share resources between processes.