On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 16:11 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Wed, 2020-07-15 at 14:25 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 02:25:14PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > > Mh, that makes sense but I'm still wary of using "proxy" due to the > > > potential for confusion, since in this case the proxy is on the > > > opposite side of the connection than one would probably expect it > > > to be. Something like "remoteproxy" or "serverproxy", perhaps? > > > > I don't think there's really any problem of confusion here unless > > someone doesn't read the docs at all, in which case they won't > > even know about this parameter. So I don't think using a more > > verbose term is any benefit. > > Okay. The other day I randomly realized the ssh-based transports already accept a 'netcat' URI parameter which can be used to point libvirt to a non-standard nc stand-in. With that in mind, is it really necessary to introduce another URI parameter? Can't we just reuse the existing one? -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
