[Io] RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Io] RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

David Faught
Todd Blanchard wrote:
>I've decided I like SWHttpClient because, while it has LOT of
>classes, it is extremely well factored, does parallel fetching, and
>has proxy/auth/cookie support.

This package does seem to be better in many ways than the older code,
but it does NOT support proxy authentication, which is a subject near
and dear to my heart.

I was not able to use the old harvesting tool BFAV(2) because of this.
 See Mantis Squeak items #912 and #1169.  I'm sure that there was a
similar reported issue for BFAV, but I didn't find it just now.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Io] RE: Web Clients (was Re: Monticello authentication methods?)

tblanchard
Hmm, I thought it did, but I know nearly nothing about proxies.  
Given that SWHttpClient is so modular, perhaps we can pull the proxy  
auth code out of the old implementation and plug it in?

Given that it is near and dear to your heart, perhaps you understand  
it well enough to do this? :-)

-Todd Blanchard

On Oct 5, 2006, at 5:08 AM, David Faught wrote:

> Todd Blanchard wrote:
>> I've decided I like SWHttpClient because, while it has LOT of
>> classes, it is extremely well factored, does parallel fetching, and
>> has proxy/auth/cookie support.
>
> This package does seem to be better in many ways than the older code,
> but it does NOT support proxy authentication, which is a subject near
> and dear to my heart.
>
> I was not able to use the old harvesting tool BFAV(2) because of this.
> See Mantis Squeak items #912 and #1169.  I'm sure that there was a
> similar reported issue for BFAV, but I didn't find it just now.
>