On Fri, 15.01.10 06:06, Tanu Kaskinen (tanuk at iki.fi) wrote: > > to, 2010-01-14 kello 14:56 +0100, Lennart Poettering kirjoitti: > > On Thu, 14.01.10 05:32, Tanu Kaskinen (tanuk at iki.fi) wrote: > > > Simpler, yes. More compatible, not much. The only cases that I can see > > > the proposed syntax would break are socket paths that > > > > > > * start with "[" (ie. they are relative paths, which don't make any > > > sense anyway, I think) or > > > * contain commas. > > > > ipv6 addresses are usually written with in [], so that the colons can > > be distuingished from the port seperator. Kinda sucks using colons in > > more than one context here? > > Did you mean "using square brackets" instead of "using colons"? Yes, you are right. Sorry for the confusion. > Colons are used in multiple contexts anyway. If you meant square > brackets, that could be solved by separating the protocol tag in > some other way, for > example: > > example.com:native!4242,dbus!4343 But that's not pretty! > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_NATIVE_UNIX, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_NATIVE_TCP4, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_NATIVE_TCP6, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_NATIVE_TCP_AUTO, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_UNIX, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP4, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP6, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP_AUTO, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_TCP4, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_TCP6, > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP_AUTO > > I assume that last entry was supposed to be > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_TCP_AUTO. Yes, sorry. Must be hard to parse my emails properly... Sorry. > > And writing PULSE_SERVER=gurki would be translated to > > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP_AUTO which means that both the dbus and the > > native client would use that address. > > And I assume you meant PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_TCP_AUTO here also. Yes, absolutely. > I think this is a fine solution. Just one question: would > "example.com:4242" be parsed as _NATIVE_TCP_AUTO, ie. ignored by D-Bus > clients? That would be a bit inconsistent, since usually strings without > any protocol prefix are parsed as _TCP_AUTO. Or should D-Bus clients > maybe try connecting to the default port on example.com? The latter > would be more compatible with existing configurations. Good point. Hmm. I'd probably say that we'd have the special rules that this would be considered _NATIVE_TCP_AUTO. Even if it is a bit unsymmetric. But connecting to non-obvious port just for fun is probably a bad idea, for security reasons. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
