You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net> on 2002/12/04 16:32:18 UTC
Re: ra_svn tunneling URL syntax
Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I've identified four options which I think I could live with:
>
> (1) svn:ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
> (2) svn://svn.collab.net:ext/repos/svn/trunk
> (3) svn://svn.collab.net:0/repos/svn/trunk
> (4) svnext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
>
> Options 1 and 2 break the common URL syntax (not the fundamental URL
> syntax, which is just scheme:scheme-specific-part, but the "common
> internet scheme syntax" syntax used for HTTP, FTP, and so on). The
> first option breaks it by adding extra crud, of course, and the second
> option breaks it by using a non-numeric port specification. Option 3
> does not break the common URL syntax but is maybe a bit too magic.
> Option 4 does not break the common URL syntax but eats a second URL
> scheme, which might be considered antisocial.
Options (2) and (3) are non-starters imho, only because they eat the
obvious place to put an alternate port number in the URL.
Regarding option (1), what about things like
svn@ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
svn+ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
svn=ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
? Is that kosher to do in the `scheme' portion of a URL? (I'm not so
much worried about RFC standards here, as about confusing users to
whom colon is already significant.)
No real problem with option (4), except that the uninitiated might
read it as "SV Next" :-). But I'd prefer anyway to stay within one
scheme (`svn') and hang the tunnel bit off that scheme in a more
obviously bit-ish way.
Just some thoughts,
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: ra_svn tunneling URL syntax
Posted by Colin Watson <cj...@flatline.org.uk>.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:32:18AM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Regarding option (1), what about things like
>
> svn@ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
> svn+ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
> svn=ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
>
> ? Is that kosher to do in the `scheme' portion of a URL? (I'm not so
> much worried about RFC standards here, as about confusing users to
> whom colon is already significant.)
Even sticking to RFC 1738, svn+ext would be kosher (or svn-ext or
svn.ext).
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: ra_svn tunneling URL syntax
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> What's wrong with that? If you're using a tunneling agent, you're not
> opening a connection on a port. (If you want to use ssh on a
> non-standard port, you set your tunneling agent to "ssh -p otherport".)
I wasn't clear, sorry. It's not a technical problem, it's a mental
problem -- users think of that slot as meaning one thing, and now
we're overloading it. For the same reason that svn doesn't have
separate global vs local options, I think we should let the port slot
mean just port and never overload it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: ra_svn tunneling URL syntax
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 11:32, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > I've identified four options which I think I could live with:
> >
> > (1) svn:ext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
> > (2) svn://svn.collab.net:ext/repos/svn/trunk
> > (3) svn://svn.collab.net:0/repos/svn/trunk
> > (4) svnext://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk
> Options (2) and (3) are non-starters imho, only because they eat the
> obvious place to put an alternate port number in the URL.
What's wrong with that? If you're using a tunneling agent, you're not
opening a connection on a port. (If you want to use ssh on a
non-standard port, you set your tunneling agent to "ssh -p otherport".)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org