[sldev] How Asset server handles saving of scripts

[John Hurliman]

I assume the server knows how to handle AbortXfer packets, but if you 
have evidence to show that it doesn't you should file a bug. However I'm 
not sure that starting a new script upload actually AbortXfers the 
previous uploads, which could be something to look in to. It doesn't 
seem like a high priority fix though as CAPS script uploads can't be too 
far off.

Gordon Wendt wrote:
> I figured that the real work for something like that would be done 
> server side, the client would have to cancel the upload and the upload 
> request but it takes the server to kill off the upload process (thus 
> freeing up processing) which I'm not sure it does at the moment.  I've 
> tried fidgeting around client side to try to figure out what effect 
> repeatedly re-saving a script has with little success so your right 
> maybe this is being handled but if it isn't or if it could be tweaked 
> then it could make a difference.
>
> On Dec 19, 2007 5:05 PM, John Hurliman <jhurliman at wsu.edu 
> <mailto:jhurliman at wsu.edu>> wrote:
>
>     The client would just need to cancel any pending asset uploads for
>     that
>     script if a new one was started. Maybe the code already does this,
>     otherwise it could be added without any server side changes needed.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>