Re: proposal for issue #178

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Adrien de Croy wrote:

>> In the end, you might sit there with a huge file with a bad checksum 
>> without being able to pinpoint the single small chunk that had the error. 
>> So now you need to redownload the whole thing again, instead of just 
>> regetting the small chunk that contained the error.
> I didn't think that was really supported by HTTP, since you can't know 
> without some meta information that parts from different servers belong to 
> the same entity.

Well, that meta information can still exist. See RFC5854 for inspiration!

> in which case it's an extension, in which case may as well add a new header 
> to explicitly cover the part entity.  E.g. Content-Part-MD5 or something. 
> And leave Content-MD5 as it is (could use both).

Yes it can, I was not really advocating for any particular header. I was 
merely suggesting that there are use-cases where getting a checksum on a range 
can be useful.



Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 13:24:56 UTC