Jorge 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?
I can try. It would be nice if we could have Keep-Alive. (Conceivably pipelining someday, but there might be too many annoying failure modes to recover from.)
* 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!
For me Dw docs have been a bless. Without them I would not be able to rewrite the table-formating algorithms.
The conceptual dw docs (doc/*.doc) have helped me understand some things at times (but not due to their doxygenicity), but the doxygen stuff in the source makes it harder for me to read comments.
Non-dw documents under doc/ are outdated and I have to agree they are of little use.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.
Yeah, I should dig through some of doc/*.txt and update some things in the areas I'm familiar with.