On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 08:54:02AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 04:47:17PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > IMHO this is all gross. URIs already have a well defined way to provide > > multiple parameters, dealing with escaping of special characters. ie query > > parameters. The whole benefit of using URI syntax is to let apps process > > the URIs using standard APIs. We should not be trying to define some extra > > magic encoding to let us stuff 2 separate parameters into the path component > > since that means apps have to now write custom parsing code again. Either > > the UNIX socket path, or the volume path should be in the URI path, not > > both. The other part should be a URI parameter. I'd really expect us to > > use: > > > > gluster:///volname/image?transport=unix&sockpath=/path/to/unix/sock > ^why 3 /// here ? volname is not a path, but image is.
The first 2 '/' are the protocol/hostname separator and the 3rd / is the hostname/path separator. Since there is no hostname in this example, you get /// > So when transport=socket or rdma, is it acceptable to still use the following > format ? > > gluster://server[:port]/volname/path/to/image[?transport=...] Of course. > With that, the different options possible are > > unix - > gluster://testvol/dir/a.img?transport=unix&sockpath=/tmp/glusterd.socket > ipv4 - gluster://1.2.3.4:0/testvol/dir/a.img?transport=socket I assume you intend 'transport=socket' to be optional here > ipv6 - gluster://[1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8]:0/testvol/a.img > hostname - gluster://example.org/testvol/dir/a.img > rdma - gluster://1.2.3.4:0/testvol/a.img?transport=rdma > > Does this look complete from the specification point of view ? Yes, this looks like a reasonable use of URIs. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
