Re: New Method Spec
On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Adam Heath wrote:
> > 4. If-Modified-Since (IMS) checking for index files
> Not just for index files.
Actually it was specificly intended for index files and that is the only
time it was used.
> I sense that some might confuse this and source. Maybe change the name of
> source to location?
Location is an even worse choice of words that source :>
> hmm, rsync and cdrom. Cool. But no :/ in the cdrom uri?
That's more or less in line with the URI spec.
> Maybe as a way of testing for which way it is being used, the method should
> check the status of stdin, and see if it is open/active.
[..]
> Does the capabilities and requirements get printed out even in cmdline mode?
> That would seem to lead to an incompatibility with the old api.
No, these methods are not backward compatible.
> > Throught operation of the method communication is done via http style
> > plain text. Specifically RFC-822 (like the Package file) fields are
> > used to describe items and a numeric-like header is used to indicate
> > what is happening. Each of these distinct communication messages
> > should be sent quickly and without pause.
>
> So, does quoting need to be done on chars sent between the parent and the
> method?
\n is never valid in a field.
> > * 402 Authorization Required - Method requires authorization to
> > access the URI. Authorization is User/Pass
>
> I hope this isn't hardcoded to JUST be user/pass. FTP has user[/pass]
> [/account]. I also hope that the methods have the capability to turn of
> echoing of some of the prompting.
The intent is to allow processing of a Username/Password authentication
scheme and nothing outside that limited scope. If necessary new queries
can be added for new types.
> > 100 Capabilities
> > Displays the capabilities of the method. Fields: Version,
> > Single-Interface, Pre-Scan
> Single-Instance?
>
> Also, possibly the field Config-Item. This would allow the method to tell APT
> what it's defaults are, and to even say that it has no configurable parts, and
> so APT would not need to send a *601 Configuration* message.
We will have to see how the configuration works out. I don't have any
plans for making an extensible GUI configuration for the methods right
now.
> > Indicates that a URI has completed being transfered. It is
> > possible to specify a *201 URI Done* without a *URI Start* which
> > would mean no data was transfered but the file is now available.
> > A Filename field is specified when the URI is directly available
> > in the local pathname space. APT will either directly use that
> > file or copy it into another location. Fields: URI, Size,
> > Last-Modified, Filename, MD5-Hash
>
> In the old api, the file: method would redirect apt to the correct location.
> The internet methods would d/l to a certain directory, and not need to notify
> apt of the location. Is this not so now? Do the internet methods need to
> notify apt of where the downloaded file is located?
The Filename field is optional. Probably should find some ways to mark
them off...
Jason
Reply to: