I took a look at libwww... it's feature packed but also somewhat
complex to install and build. It's not especially easy to install
on Windows platforms either.
We have such modest needs... just a nice, portable sockets
implementation of a GET.. (OK, it may need more than that to
support proper robots.txt parsing, but that should not be too
difficult to write.)
Anybody else look at libwww? Does it work for you? The opinion
I stated above was made after 15 minutes of poking at it. If other
people can get it working and use it then I'll figure out how to do
the same on NT.
At 11:53 AM 1/19/99 -0800, Dan Brickley wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Ron Klatchko wrote:
>> anyone know of an HTTP library that we could integrate with Swish? It
>> should meet the following requirements:
>> 1) Have a license agreement that is in line with Swish's license agreement.
>> 2) Works with most Unices and Win32.
>> 3) Mature enough version that the interface won't be constantly changing.
>> I'll make this offer. If someone is willing to do the research and find an
>> HTTP library that meets those requirements, I'll do the actual integration
>> work to drop the use of swishspider. Any takers?
>How about libwww?
> The natural compliment to W3C specifications is running code.
> Implementation and testing is an essential part of specification
> development and
> releasing the code promotes exchange of ideas in the developer
> community. All W3C software is Open Source; see the license for details.
> Note that
> this license is GPL compatible, i.e. it is possible to
> redistribute software based on W3C sources under a GPL license.
> Libwww - the W3C Sample Code Library
> Libwww is a general-purpose Web API written in C for Unix and
> Win32. It is a highly modular extensible API which can be used as the
> code base for writing Web clients, servers, proxies etc. Libwww provides
> for HTTP and other Internet protocols and also for handling a large set
> of media types including HTML.
> Disclaimer: Libwww has been designed to be both portable and flexible
> based on ANSI C and the POSIX standard. However, there are still
> platforms that do not
> conform to any of these standards. Even though autoconf is often capable
> of getting around such problems it may not always be the case. In this
> situation we are happy
> to accept patches but do not intend to actively maintain such platforms.
Received on Fri Jan 22 11:00:02 1999