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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: [Fwd: Fwd: kfm 1.85 (fwd)]
From:       Waldo Bastian <bastian () ens ! ascom ! ch>
Date:       1999-01-21 15:27:22
[Download RAW message or body]

David Faure wrote:
> 
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:39:19 -0400
> > > From: Hume Smith <hclsmith@glinx.com>
> > > To: kfm author <weis@kde.org>
> > > Subject: kfm 1.85
> > > 
> > > when it fails to connect to the proxy, it complains about not being able to \
> > > connect to the machine in the URL - a bit counterintuitive. 
> > > how hard would it be to make it say "can't connect to proxy" and then attempt \
> > > direct access? 
> > > --
> > > <URL:http://www.glinx.com/users/hclsmith/>
> > 
> > Much to my surprise kioslave sets the correct error message.
> > However this error message is totally discarded and only the
> > involved URL is send back to KFM.
> > 
> > This will not be fixed since it involves rewriting kioslave.
> 
> There is no surprise. The error reporting from kioslave is a bit weird :
> the second argument of the Error() method is a string that is _not_ sent to
> kfm. It must be for internal use only, I guess.
> So kfm (kiojob precisely) only gets a KIO_ERROR_CouldNotConnect, hence the
> error message (see kiojob.cpp line 1322).
> 
> Two things that could be done
> * add a new KIO_ERROR code to make the message clear. Blah.
> * attempt direct access if proxy didn't work. Very easy to do, but is that
> ok ? I mean, do any user want this ? Some might have, I don't know, logs
> generated when trying a direct access, and then being fired for this ? :))
> 
> Waiting for your opinion.

My opinion is to leave it as it is. 

If you want to have it fixed, you can as a way of a quick patch add 
another KIO_ERROR code. It will not win a beauty contest but that is the
way the current design works. It is the only way we have to tell KFM
what 
kind of error has happened.

I am strongly against an automatic redirection. It could be a usefull
feature
but only if we have an explicit configure option "[ ] use proxy when
available".
Not something for KDE 1.1.


Cheers,
Waldo
-- 
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today       
http://www.kde.org


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