Re: rssh.el interactions with ange-ftp/efs
>>>> On 03 Feb 1999 11:24:33 +0100,
>>>> Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch> said:
We are not proposing EFS be extended to handle other transfer
programs. I am proposing allowing other handlers for remote protocols.
The would need two things
1. A way to access a file using a particular handler. I proposed a
syntax for that. The consensus seems to be that it is worth trying
to use URL's.
2. A general method of specifying remote files is specified and logic
is added to Emacs to support automatic selection of handler. I
propose we use the EFS syntax for that as it is clean and short.
Actually, the syntax that EFS uses, should really be called the
ange-ftp syntax. Andy invented it, I believe, and it has been used in
Emacs for at least 10 years.
Under this proposal EFS would become the handler for ftp:// URLS and
the default action for a general remote name would we be to convert it
to ftp:// for backwards compatibility.
I'm not sure that I understand what this means. EFS doesn't use
ange-ftp syntax internally anyway. It treats file names as a
(HOST USER FILE) list. The only place that the syntax really enters
is in the EFS entry in the file-name-handler-alist.
EFS might not work with them but rssh.el does.
Fair enough. So all that is required is for rssh.el to put it's own
entry in the file-name-handler-alist. For file names matching its
syntax, rssh.el will run.
We already _have_ support for rsh style transfers with rssh.el. The
problem is just that
A. now it uses a remote file syntax that conflicts partly with EFS.
Perhaps then rssh.el should have picked a different syntax?
B. The user has to select by hand which protocol to use.
i.e. EFS thinks its the sole provider of remote file access.
Not true. It only runs for file names which match the ange-ftp
syntax.
However, I agree that some sort of unified syntax for remote access is
a good idea. It should be easy to implement that without any changes
to EFS. All that would be required is to turf the efs entry out of
the file-name-handler-alist and install a new handler that matches the
new syntax. That handler could then explicitly call the efs handler
if it wanted EFS to handle the remote access.
No it is a technical issue. We need a syntax for remote files that
can
hold a protocol. That the choice is URL's is maybe user interface
stuff.
EFS already supports
/USER＠HOST#PORT:FILE
so a syntax of the form
/USER＠HOST#ssh:FILE
for ssh access would be completely compatible with the current EFS
syntax. However, conforming to the URL standard also has its
attractions. Because, the file name syntax really only enters in the
file name handler, it would be possible for users to interactively
change from one syntax to the other. Just have a command which
deletes one handler from the alist and cons' a new one on.
> support for this now. However, we can probably do some things
to
> make it easier to set up EFS to use them.
This is completely separate from this discssing.
There seem to be a lot of discussions going on, with a lot of cross
CC'ing. I know that it's central to at least one of the discussions.
--sandy