commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Asankha C. Perera" <asan...@wso2.com>
Subject Re: [vfs] Re: Specifying options to FTP etc..
Date Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:18:50 GMT

Hi Mario
>> I don't quite agree with this - this may be the common case for HTTP,
>> but the URI spec does not enforce it.
>>     
> Ok, but how should we differentiate between these both use-cases?
>   
I think we should leave it upto the scheme to decide. So http may decide 
to pass it to the server, while ftp may decide to use it to talk to the 
server. i.e. each implementation will know the options they understand, 
enforce them and pass any remainder to the server. How does that sound?

Also this seems to be perfectly valid with the specs

RFC 1738; FTP (see also RFC959)

ftpurl         = "ftp://" login [ "/" fpath [ ";type=" ftptype ]]
fpath          = fsegment *[ "/" fsegment ]
fsegment       = *[ uchar | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" ]
ftptype        = "A" | "I" | "D" | "a" | "i" | "d"

There is already type=ftptype in use to indicate information about the 
transfer, thus I believe indicating to use passive ftp belongs to the 
same category i.e. ?passive=true
> and we separate the VFS configuration using the double question-mark (??)
>
> A url like:
> http://www/path/cgi-bin/send.pl?FILE=ABC&TYPE=PDF??proxyHost=proxy.host&proxyPort=8080
>
> will work then.
>   
I don't think that ("?" followed by "??") adheres to the spec though..

thanks
asankha

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message