[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] url schemes

From: Philipp Gröschler
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] url schemes
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:31:30 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080229)

Markus Schiltknecht schrieb:
That would be fine, if all servers were clever ones. But there are pretty dumb ones out, and I'd like to support them as well. Preferably with the same syntax. Parsing on the client side is not a problem: we
have that under our control. As well as the clever servers.

Then just allow a new Monotone user, as what I am, a question:

Which are those dumb servers? Following the mailing list, I thought the main talk on this thread is about how a new 'destination address and everything else syntax' for the sync command on the command line could look like. Or on protocol level, different mtn processes talking to each other. What have I missed?

I disagree, but I guess that's a matter of taste. I just happen to like RESTful APIs (which are not just about the syntax of the URL, but involve usage of GET/PUT/DELETE http commands).

Seems to be a different point of view. I am looking at the command line. You seem to be looking at protocol level. Sorry for not making that clear.

I'm arguing that most users don't care, where exactly code is involved. Heck, code is involved everywhere, it's just a matter of "what does the code do".

That was just an example, let me express that differently. A URL which looks like

doesn't let me know which part of it carries the command or call and which part carries the argument for this command. On second view, one might discern this, but it misses a clear and intuitive separator. That might be personal taste, and also might set off problems with dumb servers. Again, different league. Look at my first question above.

Most users just recognize things which look like a URLs, so they expect to be able to type it into their browser.

Things which look like an URL should also work like one. In the last few days I've seen lots of examples on the list which wouldn't work like one would expect. Again I use the word intuitive, because I like software which I can use without reading all its documentation. Just like "this one uses URLs, there are this few parameters, let's roll".

Possibly I am in the wrong thread now (should have answered on "sync mtn://" again) and possibly we are at cross purposes. Sorry for interrupting, but you where asking for thoughts.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]