Re: rssh.el interactions with ange-ftp/efs
Sandy Rutherford <sandy(a)math.ubc.ca> writes:
Therefore, the main reason for supporting URLs is not to allow
people
to use rcp, scp, etc, but to provide the convenience of having EFS
support a widespread syntax. Support for URLs will not lead to
support for rcp, scp, etc.
Well, the current syntax for remote file names does not allow one to
specify a protocol, it just assumes FTP. Changing the file name
syntax in some way such that it allows one to specify a protocol is a
Good Thing, IMHO. The new syntax does not have to be the URL syntax,
but I've got to admit that URL syntax kinds of suggests itself.
People suggest to use URL syntax because it can be construed as a
standard for naming remote files.
As an alternative, one could use
/user＠host:/path/to/file
for generic remote file names
/protocol:user＠host:/path/to/file
for specifying a protocol
This alternative would be a rather natural extension of the existing
syntax, I think.
To answer the last sentence cited above: the support for URLs is not a
_s_u_f_f_i_c_i_e_n_t condition for supporting several protocols, but the
ability
to specify a protocol is a _n_e_c_e_s_s_a_r_y condition for supporting several
protocols.
kai
--
I like _b_o_t_h kinds of music.