Hi Tedd, thanks for your feedback
Le dimanche 25 février 2018, 21:19:16 CET Tedd Sterr a écrit : > The requestor should ask for the full path to the file, not the bare > filename, so as long as you don't have two files with the same name in > the same directory, there shouldn't be a conflict. Treat the node name > as an opaque identifier for the file, so a request for a bare filename > simply won't match any of the shared files (except in the case where the > file is shared without any containing directory, but this should still > be the only file with that name.) Well the XEP states that "/" SHOULD NOT be used in name (XEP-0234 §5 and §12), so I'm not sure that putting the path there is a good idea. If so it would simplify things, but wording should be changed. > 'path/filename' should be a unique identifier, otherwise how do you know > which they are requesting? Also, if you can give all files a unique ID, > that unique ID could just as easily be the hash value itself. I may use versioning in the future, so path/filename may not be unique, that's why I would like to use UUID. > > 4) if there are several file conresponding to a file request (e.g. only > > name is given), what should we do ? Return the first one or send a > > "conflict" stanza error? > > As above; this shouldn't happen - you should not offer to share two files > with the same path+filename. My question is if we have only the filename or the hash (even if payload will be the same with single hash, metadata like name or date can differ) > The XEP hints at the possibility of requesting a file by name only (sans > path), but only when this will be unique; I suggest the request MUST > include the path to avoid any confusion. But there is no way to include the path at the moment. Goffi _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
