[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited
From: |
Robert Collins |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Nov 2003 07:40:53 +1100 |
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 03:30, Tom Lord wrote:
> > From: Robert Collins <address@hidden>
> > the ? delimits the abs_path from the query_part.
>
>
> Yes, I thought about that, but I do not think it is correct. In
> fact, for the same reason, I withdraw the suggestion of this syntax:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. This is how url's are formed: there's no choice
about it.
> >> 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".
A URL as a uniform locator isn't intrinsically client or server side.
Indeed for something like http://, a URL doesn't define *many* aspected
of the request: PUT vs POST ve GET cs SEARCH vs ....
> The query syntax, on the other hand, modifies the request, not the
> method.
No - it modifies the parameters to be used at the given location.
> Consider a hypothetical future extension of vanilla HTTP support: we
> finally get around to having some CGI-scripts that allow writes over
> vanilla HTTP. Imagine that it works isomorphically to sftp -- it is
> basically just "an sftp-like file-system over HTTP" CGI script.
>
> In that case, most likely, there's a use for the query syntax that
> will really call for server-side implementation. And if we want a
> umask-setting varient on that for arch archives, then there's two
> choices: either follow the existing pattern and do that client side
> or suddenly build that as a "special case" into the otherwise generic
> CGI scripts. I think the former (client side) is obviously the
> cleaner approach but now the URI syntax matters: are we going to have
> _some_ query elements picked out client-side and others server-side?
> or just:
>
> http-fs:.....
> http-fs%umask=XXXX:
>
> Now, maybe there's already some URI syntax I'm not aware of for
> handling "parameterized methods" and, if so, that's preferable to my
> '%' syntax but still, this modifies the method, not the query.
Gah. Where to start.
Lets debug sftp://host/path/archive?umask=007
For our current sftp transport, we define this to mean: use the umask
007 for any operations on the resources found at
sftp://host/path/archive. To implement that, the sftp scheme module in
tla must issue the sftp umask command during session setup.
So what does
http://host/path/archive?umask=007
mean?
Firstly, it's a different url scheme, so everything else is relative to
it's own definition. But for consistency, we'll choose the same
defintion for umask, and see if consistency problems occur:
we define this to mean: use the umask 007 for any operations on the
resources found at http://host/path/archive. To implement this, the http
scheme module must hand the parameter to the cgi script.
For your example of a cgi script that implements sftp commands, yes you
will need a new protocol scheme: you're not using http anymore (to do a
file upload in http you use PUT. To do a transaction with side effects,
you use POST)
so you would have
arch://host/path/archive?transport=cgi&umask=007
Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited, (continued)
- 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, 2003/11/23
- 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 <=
- 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
- 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, Robert Collins, 2003/11/23