On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:09:41 +0100 Radoslaw Zarzynski <rzarzynski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The rgw_swift_account_in_url should be possible to incorporate > > in a compatible fashion (it does not add an extra next_tok()). > > According to "rgw_swift_account_in_url": I don’t see viable method for > deducing whether two tokens in URL refer to 1) account and bucket or > 2) bucket and object. Of course, we may apply some kind of heuristic > like scanning the first token for auth prefix (eg. “AUTH_”, “KEY_”) but > this would introduce limitations on bucket naming. I thought a bit more about this and I want to backtrack on my agreement. Your reasoning would be sound if we did not know the format of the incoming URL ahead of time. Indeed there's no telling if it's /account/bucket or /bucket/object. But actually we do have that knowledge, because it's the URL that we gave to the client when it authenticated! There may be an exception, namely if a client gets a token across a cluster upgrade. For a while we should recognize old tokens and thus old StorageURL formats. This makes me think that the kind of path parsing could be a parameter hidden in the token somewhere. Anyhow, rather than speculate about it, I'm going to put together a patch to go on top of current WIP 5073 and then you'll see what I mean. -- Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
