Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:18:38AM -0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > Actually, there is agent capabilities, I think that's what the > > > server should be overriding instead. > > > > I know that is possible but imo it is hack. It would be needed to > > filter VD_AGENT_ANNOUNCE_CAPABILITIES from the agent, insert something > > like VD_AGENT_CAP_FILE_XFER_DISABLED, VD_AGENT_CAP_COPY_PASTE_DISABLED > > and also in the case that the filter is changed on the fly, it would > > be needed to generate complete VD_AGENT_ANNOUNCE_CAPABILITIES (or > > request agent to send them). I think it would be more complicated... > > I don't think it is so complicated, but I might be wrong. The server > already parses some agents messages for filtering. > > At least I think it would be cleaner from the protocol POV. I don't > see much benefit for the client to know that the server disabled > something explicitely vs the agent not having the capability. I think we could do some distinction about agent capabilities and features that are disabled on host and for that reason I think this message makes sense from protocol POV. Although, this is more host features then guest/agent features? toso
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel