Re: sftp rename not good.

[Alfred Perlstein <bright%mu.org@localhost>]

* Dan O'Reilly <dano%process.com@localhost> [030513 19:26] wrote:
> At 07:40 PM 5/13/2003, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:19:16PM -0600, Dan O'Reilly wrote:
> >> At 05:35 PM 5/13/2003, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >> >If the client doesn't care, then the semantics of rename should be upto
> >> >the server (within some parameters? which parameters?).
> >> >
> >> >But I think the client cares, or, rather, this user cares :) :)
> >>
> >> Well, actually, I agree with you, and you've made my point.  The client
> >> doesn't care, but the user does.  And a user on a VMS system will expect
> >> to see things done the way VMS does things, just as a user on a UNIX
> >> system will expect to see things done with way UNIX does things.  So, if
> >> the functionality is left up to the server, it accomplishes that quick
> >> nicely.
> >
> >Quite convincing.  I'm afraid that scripted clients may nonetheless need
> >to know what semantics are implemented on the server side, or at least
> >what platform it is.  But overall I agree with you, let the server do as
> >it will, and possibly, give the client a hint.
> 
> I've often wondered why there wasn't a provision for that "hint"; some sort
> of optional part of some initialization message that the server could use
> to inform the client (and, I suppose, vice-versa) of what system is
> running.  I have to believe there would be some good uses for that.

Isn't that somewhat like what ftp does?  Afaik you used to see
something like "remote system is UNIX" when logging in, maybe that
was just infomative and not part of the spec though.

-Alfred