> I think so, yes, at least for HTTP requests to the same port. However, > IMHO this is a good decision, at least for pipelined HTTP hosts. > (FTP/HTTP1.0 is a different matter.) > > As always with libwww, it's probably possible to play some dirty tricks to > get around the limitation. For this, you somehow need to fool HTHost_new() > into creating another host object. For example, it might be possible just > to append "." to the hostname for a second connection. It's worth pointing out that I tried something similar to this that I _thought_ would work, but it caused some problems. I was adding a random integer to the hash value from 0 to 3 % the hash table size. It seemed to work at first, but for some sites it seemed to get into a deadlock for some reason, where it was selecting on no file descriptors with no timeout. I'm running in HTTP/1.1 mode with no pipelining. I'd love to be able to get this to work with an arbitrary number of connections, but if the solution of appending a "." works that would be nice to just get double the throughput. Alec -- Alec H. Peterson -- ahp@hilander.com Chief Technology Officer Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.comReceived on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 11:25:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:18:43 GMT