Re: lynx-dev dev22 - patch to fix PSRC mode with SOURCE_CACHE!=NONE

[Klaus Weide]

On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Scott Bigham wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Leonid Pauzner wrote:
[ .... ]
> > More problems expected since we now reload documents
> > out of mainloop() cyrcle.
> 
> Not so much outside of mainloop(); we're just tripping over things that
> would normally get cleaned up behind getfile().  And yes, I do expect to
> run into more of them... :-(

Uhmm.  I've been following this only from the sidelines, but it reminds
me of the discussions we had last November (see messages containing "cach"
in the 1198 archive, including my long blurbs
  <http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month1198/msg00428.html>
  <http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month1198/msg00457.html>).
It seems the source caching is implemeted in a way I woudl have preferred
to avoid: data flow separate from the normal getfile() chain, a new
and very different way to determine freshness, and overall control
concentrated in already-too-big mainloop().   The result is numerous
tweaks for cases that were not considered at first, with more to come.

Don't get me wrong, it's great that you have done something while I was
only talking.  Still, if there is a way you can reconsider the place
where this is basically controlled, to move it away from mainloop()
tweaks, please do it...

If the gimme-data part were sitting somewhere between getfile() and
(current) HTLoadDocument, we'd get the benefits of all the various
checks that are (especially) in getfile().  Granted, they seem not
to be needed now, since we're only reloading a document that has
been loaded and so must have already been checked.  But relying on
this makes it much more difficult to expand the reach of the source
cache later (should we want to use caching for not-already-loaded
documents), or to handle properly the case where the checks done
in getfile() depend on settings that can change at runtime (and
I understand that may be the case now, with the edit-lynx.cfg
changes).  Basically, part or most of getfile() [and others?]
would have to be duplicated.

   Klaus