|
From: <ebi...@ln...> - 2002-07-06 01:23:46
|
ke...@us... (Ken Yap) writes: > >O.k. I have been talking about this with the users on my end and for > >me at least there is one very useful thing to be gained with the: > >://<server>:<port>/filename > >syntax. > > > >And that is the ability to specify a port. Unless there is an option > >to specify a different one. This may be a wasteful bit of the slam > >protocol as I have it currently defined. But it currently uses one > >port per file. So I can't do the :/// trick. > > Ok, this I agree is a useful facility not currently possible and should > be allowed. I'm not against adopting parts of standard syntax that are > useful. So I suggest that the parser ignore the host portion and > permit a null host portion in the URI. So it would look like: > > protocol://[host][:port]/tail Sounds good. Optional hosts are not normally allowed but that is because there is not a good default and we have one. The full standard syntax is: protocol://<user>:<password>@<host>:<port>/tail I don't see us needing the user and password code any time soon. When I get back to it if I implment the port I don't see a reason not to implement the host. However I will store the host in the arp table (like next-server) so it doesn't matter to the rest of etherboot. Unless the code is larger than I expect. Eric |
