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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: KFM support for Samba?
From:       Waldo Bastian <bastian () ens ! ascom ! ch>
Date:       1999-04-28 16:11:50
[Download RAW message or body]

Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Alex Zepeda wrote:
> >> > So don't use it.  Use something that's a valid URL, but not a valid SMB
> > > url... Or you could create another "protocol" that your slave will
> > > reference, so that browser://blah wuld returh a network neighborhood.. but
> > > smb://blah would access a share itself..
> >
> > BTW, why is file:/ a valid URL and not smb:/ or smb:// ?
> 
> >Heh.  If file:/ is valid, IMO, it shouldn't be.  But I also think the
> >slave determines what's valid and what's not (for the most part).
> 
> Have not checked the new KURL, but "file:" is/was supported as a valid URL
> in old KURL.  In fact, if you type /whatever/myfile, KURL will internally store
> it as file:/whatever/myfile.  And this is a syntatically correct or valid URL
> acorrding to RFC 1738 ( I know I know who reads these things anyway !!! ).

I don't go to sleep without reading a RFC...

> RFC 1738 dedines a URL as :
> 
>         <scheme>:<scheme-specific-part>
> 
> where <scheme> is the protocol used.  Some of the most popular ones are :
> 
> ftp                     File Transfer protocol
> http                    Hypertext Transfer Protocol
> gopher               The Gopher protocol
> mailto                 Electronic mail address
> news                  USENET news
> nntp                   USENET news using NNTP access
> telnet                  Reference to interactive sessions
> wais                   Wide Area Information Servers
> file                      Host-specific file names
> prospero              Prospero Directory Service
> 
> and the <scheme-specific part> is defined as
> 
>         //<user>:<password>@<host>:<port>/<url-path>

Note that the "scheme-specific" part is scheme specific. The above
definition is
the Common Internet Scheme Syntax. A particular scheme may, or may not
adopt
this Internet Scheme.

| 3.1. Common Internet Scheme Syntax
|
|   While the syntax for the rest of the URL may vary depending on the
|   particular scheme selected, URL schemes that involve the direct use
|   of an IP-based protocol to a specified host on the Internet use a
|   common syntax for the scheme-specific data:
|
|        //<user>:<password>@<host>:<port>/<url-path>

One can argue whether this scheme should be adopted for SAMBA. IMHO It's
more a 
LAN-based protocol than a IP protocol, and doesn't use the DNS name for
identifying
the host as the other IP-based services.

I don't think "file:" is a valid URL since it doesn't specify a path.

To me, both "smb:/" and "smb://" look like potentionally valid URLs.
Potentially, 
because this depends on how you define the scheme-specific part for the
SMB scheme.

Note that KURL (especially the present version) poorly reflects URLs in
general since
it does not take into account that the syntax of the scheme-specific
part depends
on the actual scheme (the protocol part). Although I have tried to bring
this point
over a few times in the past, I think I failed.

Cheers,
Waldo

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