2008/1/26, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Such a server mode would (1) sidestep the need for flaky control > > master connections, (2) would eliminate the need to rely on scp and > > sftp (and the need, on Windows, to set up the Putty semi-equivalents), > > and (3) would perform and function equally well on Windows. And (4) it > > should perform great. > > Yes, that would be nice. It *would* add a requirement for darcs to be > present on the server (not a huge requirement, and we could always fall > back on scp). And most folks who get and pull over ssh will also be > pushing over ssh, which already requires darcs be present on the server.
> It also would require that we develop an entire ftp protocol including > transmition of errors. I think this would definitely be harder than > learning haskell. Which isn't to say it's not a reasonable problem to > tackle, but rather that your lack of Haskell knowledge isn't an excuse! Been there, tried to done both. Now I have working sftp and almost grok $. My darcswrap.py includes sftp implementation in less than 800 lines of Python, gruesomely butchered from innards of Twisted Conch. See <http://sofia-sip.org/~ppessi/darcswrap/>. I briefly considered implementing the darcswrap in Haskell, but gave up due to aforementioned reasons. If using the sftp protocol you could say something like ssh 'darcs --server-mode || /usr/libexec/openssh/sftp-server' and cope with systems without darcs or with an older darcs version. In latter case you simply had to invoke 'darcs apply' in separate ssh connection. The expired I-D draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-13 describes sftp, draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-extensions-00 how to extend sftp (with darcs-specific messages). > One might also wonder why we don't use the existing sftp program, which > itself implements quite a similar protocol to what you're proposing. In > fact, we do so, but haven't wanted to deal with the headache of maintaining > the connection, so we only do so during darcs get (when we know in advance > an entire list of files we'd like to grab). And this itself turns out to > be somewhat fragile, as not all sftp servers are identical (and of course, > putty never names any of its commands in a standard manner). SFTP clients you mean? Well, perhaps it easier to reimplement sftp than try to control random sftp client in win32... -- Pekka.Pessi mail at nokia.com _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list darcs-devel@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
