Just in case...
This is the resulting patch which is working for us.
LGPL.
With respect,
Max
On 12/08/2015 10:21 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion, but right now I’m not planning on making such a
> change to the supplied server code, because this functionality is unlikely to
Thanks for the suggestion, but right now I’m not planning on making such a
change to the supplied server code, because this functionality is unlikely to
be used very much.
So for now you should just modify your own copy of the code, subject - as
always - to the LGPL:
http://live555.com/
Thank you very much, Ross!
I think it is possible to do a patch which will not break the old
behaviour and let other replies.
(And I personally have no doubt that you know better than me how to do
it; just as a proposal...)
Say, in the header we add another virtual method with the string as a
ret
Our server code currently has no mechanism for specifying an ‘authentication
failed’ response other than “401 Unauthorized”.
Ross Finlayson
Live Networks, Inc.
http://www.live555.com/
___
live-devel mailing list
live-devel@lists.live555.com
http://li
