Re: sftp rename not good.

[Dan O'Reilly <dano%process.com@localhost>]

At 05:20 PM 5/13/2003, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 03:22:37PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * Dan O'Reilly <dano%process.com@localhost> [030513 15:18] wrote:
> > > At 03:57 PM 5/13/2003, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I think there should be some way of invoking an actual rename(2)
> > > >on the server.
> > >
> > > That would be best, IMHO.  That way, you can implement server-specific
> > > behavior.  For example, those of us on VMS have versioned file systems,
> > > so the behavior of a rename on VMS could be drastically different than
> > > that on a UNIX system.
> >
> > Now that scares me. :)  My intention was to gather support for UNIX
> > semantics for this, not "whatever rename(2) does on the server".
>
> If the semantics of file renaming vary so much from platform to
> platform, without even the ability to reliably emulate one behaviour on
> all those platforms, then either that variance will have to carry
> through to SFTP or the SFTP server will have to have a way to tell the
> SFTP client what file rename semantics it supports so the client can
> choose which to use.

Why should the client care at all?  The basic requirement is "support a
rename function".  Why should the client *SOFTWARE* (not USER) care how
the server system actually performs that?  A VMS system should be allowed
to behave as a VMS system should when renaming a file; as should a UNIX
system or a Windows system.  That's not client-specific.

------
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Dan O'Reilly                  |  "There are 10 types of people in this |
| Principal Engineer            |   world: those who understand binary   |
| Process Software              |   and those who don't."                |
| http://www.process.com        |                                        |
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------------+