[REBOL] Re: ftp scheme (cont.)
From: carl:cybercraft at: 24-Dec-2003 22:48
On 17-Nov-03, Brett Handley wrote:
> Hi again,
> It would be great if Ashley and Carl could run this new test against
> their servers. This one is in source code form rather than a patch.
Works fine with all my three servers Brett. Good work. So, should I
make this my perminant ftp patch? I'm losing track of which is
> ---What I've done
> Romano wrote (some days back):
>> If LIST is not implemented, the server should return an error, not
> empty list of files.
> I think this is entirely reasonable, so in this latest FTP scheme
> I've changed the logic to use NLST only if parsing of LIST results
> fails. That is, if nothing is returned successfully I consider that
> an empty directory, if something is returned but our parse rules
> fail then I use NLST. Because it is simpler, NLST is unlikely to
> fail (if it is implemented on the server). If by chance both do
> actually fail, then I raise an error. I've also factored out the
> common logic as I see it into a separate function to see how LIST
> and NLST are so similiar.
> I've also merged the various patches added a little more network
> logging and changed [error? catch value ] sequences to [error? try
> [catch value]] pending Romano's comments on this error handling
> do http://www.codeconscious.com/ftp-testing/ftp-proposed.r
> trace/net true
> read ftp://....