Re: sftp rename not good.

[Pontus Skoeld <pont_secsh%soua.net@localhost>]

"Dan O'Reilly" <dano%process.com@localhost> writes:

> >So if we followed you suggestion and had sftp's rename method simply use
> >the OS-supplied function, we would have clients that behave differently
> >depending on the server.
> 
> Why in the world would the CLIENT behave differently?  The client says
> "rename this file".  The server does so, according to the rules of the
> system that the server is running on.  Case closed.  The client doesn't
> have to know *ANYTHING* about what the server is doing.  Perhaps the
> USER might, but not the client itself.

The client may try to hide the sftp protocol and act like the user
expects her normal system to act, which is probably what matters to
her. She shouldn't need to know if someone decides to move her files
from a UN*X box to a VMS server.

(I'm not sure whatever that answers your question, but if the client
wants to present a consistent "user experience", it would have to keep
track of server peculiarities and work around those).

Also, I think not specifying the semantics would make it harder to
implement things like file system drivers (for mounting sftp sites as
normal filesystems) and guess it could mean it takes even longer
before programs like Adobe GoLive and Dreamweaver get sftp support,
both those things are bad.

That said, I do of course encourage everyone to make sure that we end
up with good, useful semantics.

	/Pontus
-- 

Pontus Sköld, see <URL:http://soua.net/> for more information.