[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: URL filename syntax?
Kim F. Storm
Re: URL filename syntax?
14 Apr 2003 17:05:36 +0200
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50
address@hidden (Kai Großjohann) writes:
> Is it desirable to use URL-like syntax for remote files?
> Currently, Tramp uses this format:
> My idea is to use
For normal find-file syntax, // means to discard everything before the
second slash; thus, your suggested change may be hard to get through the
standard read-file-name function (without some changes at the C level).
Also, for a package like ido, the absense of any slashes in the "tramp
part" of the file name is a significant advantage when it comes to
parsing such strings and determining what is what [and given the
obscure ways tramp does method/user/server/file name completion, this
is necessary; look at the code in ido.el, if you don't believe me :-)]
> I think we can't require our users to type %2F in such cases, and
> therefore I propose to change the ftp URL syntax to interpret
> ftp://address@hidden//foo as the file /foo on the remote host. (And
> ftp://address@hidden/foo refers to ~user/foo.)
Again, you are violating the principle that // has a special meaning
when entering a file name.
> * Tramp allows to omit the method. How do I do that with URLs?
[things get worse, right?]
> * Tramp also supports multi-hop connections, with a syntax like
> where hopI looks like hop-method:address@hidden So, for example,
> means to use telnet to log in as user kai on marvin, then use
> /bin/su there to become root, then access the file /etc/passwd.
With URL syntax, you would need to write // to access a file
from the root, ie.
or you would open ~root/etc/passwd, right?
> In the rare case where one would like to access a file/directory
> whose name contains a colon, one can add slashes. So to access the
> file "foo:bar" in root's homedir, one could use
> which is unambiguous.
Ok, but I suppose that is a general problem, not specific to using the
URL syntax or not.
> Clearly, multi://telnet:address@hidden/su:address@hidden/foo:bar will
> not work so well...
> Hm. But I could support ~, too, so this would
> become multi://telnet:address@hidden/su:address@hidden/~/foo:bar which
> is unambiguous.
I definitely prefer the current tramp syntax! It does the job well,
has a tidy syntax, works well with read-file-name (and ido), and it
doesn't pretend to be something it ain't.
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk