[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:33:21 -0800 (PST) |
> From: address@hidden
> > and say that only these two are right (with the /// fix):
> > >> file%umask=XXX:///path/to/your/archive
> > >> sftp%umask=XXX:/address@hidden/path/to/your/archive
> > The reason for this is that the umask parameter modifies the method,
> > not the request. It is a client-side parameter that means, in effect,
> > "don't use ordinary {sftp,file} -- use the {sftp,file} transport where
> > you set the umask first".
> Different layer of abstraction. It belongs in the part after the colon
> because it modifies something chosen after the part before the colon is
> parsed.
> How many many implementers did it before is that the part before the colon
> is the 'name' of the service; and there is only a limited list.
> If you want to list your imap mailbox from konqueror you can use the imap:
> name, and pass various options to it by altering the url after the colon.
> In other works; don't use this way unless you want to invent something
> new which can not communicate with anyone else.
Don't confuse transport with protocol.
I stand by my statement. The umask parameter is effectively a change
in protocol. It so happens that the new sftp%umask=XXX protocol can
be correctly implemented on the server-side by an ordinary sftp
server, but that's essentially just a (convenient) coincidence.
Putting the umask parameter in the hostname part or as a query would
result in an invalid sftp uri, would it not?
The method part of a URI is what a client uses to decide how to
connect. That decision needs the umask parameter -- its part of the
method.
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Tom Lord, 2003/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Anderson, 2003/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Collins, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Tom Lord, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, zander, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited,
Tom Lord <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robin Farine, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Collins, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Collins, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Tom Lord, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, zander, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Tom Lord, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, zander, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Tom Lord, 2003/11/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/11/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, Robert Collins, 2003/11/23