[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: thoughts about network integration in KDE2, please read (was:
From:       Simon Hausmann <shaus () helios ! Med ! Uni-Magdeburg ! DE>
Date:       1999-12-02 14:07:02
[Download RAW message or body]



On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, aleXXX wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Dec 1999, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> > aleXXX wrote:
> > 
> > I don't think this is the way to go. We want to have URLs and not pseudo
> > commands :)
> > 
> > It surely would be nice if you could browse some kind of toplevel
> > without
> > entering ftp, but then you would have to create a list of all ftp
> > servers
> > in the net and that would be truely too much :)
> 
> I know. ;-)
> And I do know that ftp://ftp.troll.no is internet standard.
> I did not say scan the whole internet for ftp-servers.
> I did not say no standard-URL's.
> But these standard-URL's have another starting point.
> You know the location and what you can get there.
> 
> Please anybody explain me how samba-support should look in kde2.

IMHO the right thing is to hack kio_smb to show a list of available smb
hosts through smb:// . I once talked with Nicolas about this, and he said
that it is (theoretically) possible.

I could imagine that similar things are possible for a kio_nfs slave.

Then you just need to provide two .desktop's for KonqDirTree and you've
got your browseable treeview. (no need for network:// hacks ;)

IMHO :-)

Bye,
 Simon

> If it is only that you can only enter smb://some_host/some_share/a_file then it
> is almost not worth doing it.
> Nobody will use smbclient -Llocalhost to see which hosts exist and then enter
> smb://and_so_on for every host.
> And nobody will enter such an URL e.g. in a mp3-player.
> And if you have a level which gives you a list of hosts then
> this level doesn't belong to samba, ftp or whatever.
> Samba, ftp and so on are on a level where two hosts exchange data.
> They are not on the level which hosts are connected to a network.
> E.g. smb://host_name/sharename describes a samba-share an a host (correct).
> smb://host_name should describe a host, but describes only the samba-featues of
> a host. A host is independent from samba. A host is a host and not a
> samba-feature. Samba-support is a feature of a host. Of course it should be
> able to have smb://somehost to see the shares of this host, but did you notice ?
> This will give you the shares (samba-features), not common information about
> the host.
> Smbclient -L localhost gives you more or less reliable the hosts
> currently connected to the LAN which support samba.
> Do we want to have this or do we want to have a list of hosts, also containing
> the hosts, which don't support samba ? 
> In this case we need an ioslave independent from protocols like ftp, smb...
> And there is no existing protocol for detecting hosts, so we can't use an
> internet-standard-URL for this. The smb-(windows)-solution is very poor and
> very specific. Only hosts supporting samba appear and sometimes they are still
> visible although they are already away since hours.
> 
> Bye
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
> 

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]