 |
 |
Hi Fabrizio, I guess I'm trying to understand which is the right way of interpreting the urls. Is the slash after the host name considered part of the host name or part of the path. That is the question. What does the standard say? As for the ambiguous unix syntax, well it's not ambiguous because as far as xrootd is concerned the path must start with a slash (relative paths are not allowed). So, [user[:pwd]@]host[:port]:/path We can trivially split out: user[:pwd]@]host[:port]: Then we trivially split out user[:pwd]@ (which may be null) host[:port] >From here you can see there is no ambiguity. Andy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fabrizio Furano" <[log in to unmask]> To: "Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]> Cc: "Fabrizio Furano" <[log in to unmask]>; "Xrootd Mailing List" <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:13 AM Subject: Re: Xrdcp MPEG demo - Xrdcp syntax > 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 > >> >