HTTrack Website Copier
Free software offline browser - FORUM
Subject: Re: Writing to ARC format
Author: Xavier Roche
Date: 11/18/2003 20:39
 
> There's some weirdness about the statuscode field in 
htsblk
> as passed to receive-headers.  It doesn't seem to reflect
> the status code found in the headers (and seen by other
> parts of HTTrack).

Ah, yes. Some transformations are being made:
200 => 206 for bogus responses with 'content-range'
203 => 200 because this is the same and I did not want 
multiple tests
416 => 304 for bogus 'Requested Range Not Satisfiable' 
responses when the file is actually complete after a 
request using Content-range: bytes */<size>
406 => 200 OK is good: links inside
206 => 200 for partial files (200 is good)
"brain fcked request" => 200 because brainfcked servers 
exists :(
304 => 200 because as we have a cache, we can 
simulate "fake" 200 responses (so that we don't have to 
bother with the update process)

There are also negative codes (-1,..-10) for timeouts, and 
other various errors (see the 'msg' member of the htsblk 
structure, which is the error string message)

> get_header shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause: (-5) 
> * shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause (270 bytes) - 301

Argh - forgot to say that the receive-header callback is 
called **BEFORE** headers are being processed - therefore 
most fields are irrelevant at this state!

> Note that it depends on GLib, since I had HTTracks own 
hash
> table crash on me.

Darn! Using htsinthash.* functions ?
 
Reply Create subthread


All articles

Subject Author Date
Re: Writing to ARC format

11/17/2003 23:01
Re: Writing to ARC format

11/18/2003 14:40
Re: Writing to ARC format

11/18/2003 17:21
Re: Writing to ARC format

11/18/2003 20:27
Re: Writing to ARC format

11/18/2003 20:39
Re: Writing to ARC format

11/19/2003 09:33
Re: Writing to ARC format

11/22/2003 16:10




a

Created with FORUM 2.0.11