Hi Andy,
Yes, there is a difference. Internally the two urls are parsed and in
the former case "xyzzy" is considered as path/file, while in the latter
it's "/xyzzy".
This behavior comes directly from root's TUrl.
The unix syntax seems a good idea to me. Also because there is no need
to limit the transfer to root files.
In this case, however, I need to specify user, pwd and port number.
So, the new syntax for remote files could be:
[user[:pwd]@]host[:port]:path
but in this case there would be an ambiguity problem, since e.g.
noric02:3456 can mean "file 3456 on noric02" or "the current directory
on noric02 port 3456"
Any comment?
Fabrizio
Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
> Hi Habrizio,
>
> It seems to work just fine; thank you.
>
> Now, there seems to be a diffrence of opinion on how urls are to be
> interpreted. What is the difference wbetween: root://host/xyzzy and
> root://host//xyzzy (there clearly is a difference).
>
> Also, could you accept (in xrdcp) the unix syntax of <host>:path ?
>
> Andy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fabrizio Furano" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: "Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:57 AM
> Subject: Xrdcp MPEG demo
>
>
>
>>Hi Andy,
>>
>> the head of xrdclient seems very good to me now for your demo. I
>>suggest you to make some tests with it in conjuction with plaympeg. For
>>example, I discovered that in my laptop I am unable to show more than a
>>mpeg window at a time. Not for the performances. The second window reads
>>the data ok but show itself black.
>>Is it the same for you?
>>
>>Fabrizio
>>
|