[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring
From: |
Daniel Stenberg |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:06:17 +0200 (CEST) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) |
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
But we should not forget about a monolithic, backward-compatibel (to wget
1.x) wget 2.0. We all agree, it is time to redesign wget's code architecture
to have a clean codebase for new features to implement, to increase
readability/hackability, to increase modularity and to increase code
reusability (wget-derived libraries). Not to forget current C language /
library conventions and features like C99 and Posix compatibility. On older
systems wget 1.x would stay the preferred version.
You should know I talk of my own project here, but I would like to remind
people that when considering an overhaul of a (portable) HTTP/FTP project,
there might be reasons to think about letting the transfers be handled by
libcurl. It already supports more protocols, more SSL flavours and more
features than the wget transfer engine and it exists as a completely free and
open, proven and well documented library with a stable API today. Most of
mget's "Not Yet Implemented" features are already supported by libcurl.
This said, I realize it is not kosher for a GNU project since libcurl is not
GNU and I believe it will be a primary factor that will prevent this from
happening. I still believe it would be smart from a technical perspecitive.
Also, this is not a new idea and it has been turned down before:
http://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2007/10/27/wget-going-libcurl/ and
http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg01129.html
BTW, would "older systems" include Microsoft Windows too then as you mention
C99 which isn't supported by Microsoft compilers?
Started as a just-for-fun coding, I just created a project 'mget' on github.
While working on it, I got the idea to merge it with wget 1.x into wget 2.
Please have a look at https://github.com/rockdaboot/mget and let's start a
discussion, if that's what we want and how we should go on.
So this is basically a set of patches on top of the stock Wget? If it is, have
those patches been posted here? If it isn't, how exactly does it relate to
wget other than being a similar tool?
--
/ daniel.haxx.se
- [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Tim Ruehsen, 2012/08/13
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring,
Daniel Stenberg <=
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Tim Ruehsen, 2012/08/13
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Micah Cowan, 2012/08/13
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Tim Ruehsen, 2012/08/14
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Daniel Stenberg, 2012/08/15
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Tim Ruehsen, 2012/08/16
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Micah Cowan, 2012/08/16
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Tim Ruehsen, 2012/08/22
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Tim Ruehsen, 2012/08/24
- Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Micah Cowan, 2012/08/24
Re: [Bug-wget] wget2.0 / niwt / refactoring, Micah Cowan, 2012/08/13