[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited

From: zander
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] multi-committer functionality revisited
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:50:34 +0100

On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 01:49:44PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: address@hidden
>     > >     > From: Robert Collins <address@hidden>
>     > >     > Sorry, I wasn't clear. This is how url's are formed: there's no 
> choice
>     > >     > about it.
>     > > I don't think so.  Cites?
>     > read the RFC.
>     >
> This is a very long document.  Scanning it, I see no specific language
> that covers this case.  So, would you care to cite the specific
> language that you think applies?

I think it would be wourth your while to actually take some more time to read
it, there is lots of stuff in there that is interresting to know when you
handle URLs/URIs.  This stuff is not as obvious as you seem to think!

You are looking for the part where its made clear that
is pointing to another port/application/implementation then

>     > > PUT, POST, GET, etc. are parts of the http protocol.
>     > ...
>     > > They modify the path, not the protocol.  The umask thing modifies the
>     > > protocol.
>     > So by this reasoning there should also be a http%method=POST: protocol.
>     > Thats just silly.
> No, that is not analogous reasoning.

I think it is.
There was a time when PUT was not in the protocoll (well, at least most servers
did not allow it). The naming was still http, and the server gave an error
when it failed to provide it.  Which is a good thing.

> To properly use the URI of an sftp- or file-accessible archive with a
> umask setting, a client must use a different protocol than it would
> when using sftp: or file:.    You could regard the umask varients as
> new protocols that happen to be layered on sftp: and file: but are,
> nevertheless, distinct from them.

Right, wuftpd and flavor-x ftpd are also different ones, but the whole idea
of using the concept of URI is to provide one interface to all features.
Adding a new feature does not automatically mean to pollute the namespace
with yet-another protocol.

Thomas Zander

reply via email to

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