On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 07:55:43PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 02:13:52AM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:01:12PM -0700, bf wrote:
--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote: I don't see any mention of a limit on concurrent connections that was proposed earlier, and as far as I know it hasn't been implemented. In addition to the reasons given earlier, it is very frustrating to have to implement your own traffic-shaping just to avoid being blocked by a rate/connection-limiting firewall, or to avoid being blocklisted by a site you had hoped to visit. I'd hate to see dillo gain a reputation as a problematic UserAgent, and perhaps be blocked by some heavy-handed administrators.
If I had magical make-Jorge-do-my-bidding powers, this would be on the top of my list.
Interesting...
I'll give it a look, try to come up with raw patch and send it to you for polish. Would you?
* Document CCC, dlib and dillo in doxygen format.
The situation seems to me as follows: pre-doxygen: easy-to-read code, useless documentation post-doxygen: hard-to-read code, useless documentation
Oh, sounds harsh!
Yes that's a bit harsh, but I think corvid is right to some degree. doxygen style comments that describe every method and their parameters are not needed in dillo. It is no library after all. What is really important is an up-to-date overview document that explains the concepts. The rest can mostly be figured out from the code.
For me Dw docs have been a bless. Without them I would not be able to rewrite the table-formating algorithms.
Yes. the dw/* documentation is good because it describes the concepts. But if I want to find out what some method does, I now look at the code, not the docs.
Non-dw documents under doc/ are outdated and I have to agree they are of little use. I'll try to write one about CCC that will hopefully help you with the limit on concurrent connections.
That would be great. Cheers, Johannes