Hi,
On 04/10/10 14:44, ext Marcel Holtmann wrote:
what is wrong with just using "Server", "Port", "Username" and
"Password" fields here?
Do we really wanna support different proxy servers for different
protocol types? I don't think that is really useful. We wanna make this
as simple as possible for the end users. And expose less settings as
possible.
Why not following what is used everywhere: browsers sets the proxies
that way, Qt does, and many others too.
I agree that it lacks one thing here: a boolean field that enable 1
generic proxy url/port for all (then only Http/HttpPort would be useful) or
which selectively enable different protocols. Like it is done in let's
say: firefox.
About Username/Password, this is quite advanced settings, and then it
would require to store such pair for every type of proxy. (This is what
gnome does if I recall well). And it is actually as rare to get an
access-resticted proxy than a protocol based proxy configuration.
I know it expose then quite much settings, but end-user is not entitled
to manipulate those on its own. I mean, it is up to UI to expose those.
Isn't so that ConnMan should be able to handle as much settings as it
could, so that UI would be able to expose in a simple way basic settings
as well as advanced settings? At least in that particular case: proxies.
And is ipconfig.c the right place anyway?
Best regards,
Tomasz
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
