 |
 |
Hi, this is the thing that I am actually thinking at. My position is to make the client side as much agnostic as possible about the content of the filename. The only restriction that I pose is that the filename (with its opaque info) won't contain control characters, e.g. newlines or zeros. So, anybody trying to submit opaque data is supposed to verify this. Fabrizio Fons Rademakers wrote: > Do we have to worry about supporting filenames containing '?' ? Support > this via '\?' to escape the '?'. Might be useful in the posix layer > since we cannot assume anything about a name. > > -- Fons > > > Fabrizio Furano wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I argue from this that the opaque info passed e.g. through xrdcp must >> be passed for any request containing a filename, like Stat or Dirlist. >> Am I right? >> >> Fabrizio >> >> Andrew Hanushevsky wrote: >> >>> Hi Andreas, >>> >>> OK, so it would appear that we will need to extract out the information >>> after the "?" and pass that as a separate parameter. I do that, >>> instead of >>> passing the complete url, so as to not re-implement searching for the >>> opaque information in every function. The called function, hoewver, is >>> responsible for making sense of the opaque information. >>> >>> That does mean changing most file system calls to include the opaque >>> parameter. That also solves the olbd issue in a unified way. >>> >>> Do we all agree to go that route? >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Andreas Joachim Peters wrote: >>> >>> >>>> As it is, it is absolutely fine for me. I would prefer, that the >>>> complete >>>> URL is always passed to any function and the function has to extract >>>> the part >>>> it needs. But as it is, it works perfectly for us. >>>> >>>> I use the following syntax: >>>> >>>> root://server.domain:port/<lfn>?&authz=<authorization block> >>>> >>>> Because even for a stat command it can be useful, that you can specify >>>> some environment variable like the stagepool the file is on. >>>> >>>> Cheers Andreas. >>>> >>>> >