On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Antoine Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> It'd be pretty trivial -- all the core code pretty much just wants a >> socket, it doesn't care where it came from -- just you'd have to deal >> with security and the UI and all, which is a hassle. > > I have tested this and it worked beautifully. > > I have come up with a scheme which remains backwards compatible too (the > default behaviour is unchanged): > * instead of specifying ":displayNo", you can use "host:displayNo" > The server then binds to the TCP socket using the host name (ie: localhost) > and the display number (+ an offset).
NB, binding to localhost is not particularly sensible, because if someone has access to the localhost interface then they can just use the unix domain socket :-). > The offset can be specified on the command line with a switch but defaults > to 10000. 10000 seems like a suspiciously round number -- is there really no-one using the 10000-10030 (say) range? > Ditto for the client: you can specify "host:displayNo" instead of > "ssh:host:displayNo". > * We still create a file in ~$USER/.xpra except it is not a socket but a > plain file with the host and tcp port number in it. > This allows 'xpra list' to continue to work as before. > > Is this acceptable for merging? Still not convinced that this is really useful in practice, but, eh, if you actually want to use it, then sure, whatever... Mightn't it be better if we always listened on the unix socket, and if we want to listen on TCP then do that in addition, rather than instead? Then ssh-mode and tcp-mode can be used on the same server, etc. I think I prefer the URL-like schema "tcp:host:displayno" as well, since tcp is not a more default mode than ssh. > If so, how would you like me to send the patches? diff against trunk? That would be fine. -- Nathaniel _______________________________________________ Parti-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.partiwm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/parti-discuss
