 |
 |
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 >>