[REBOL] Re: read ftp:// error - "Juin" -> "Jun" ?
From: gjones05:mail:orion at: 4-Jun-2001 15:29
> > > I have a radically different proposal.
> > > why not add a new 'iftp scheme.
> > >
> > > But instead of supporting all the gadgets of the original
> > > scheme take a more simplistic way and make it more
> > > interactive.
> > >
> > > That means it should allow "insert port 'command" and
> > > just give back the result with copy. This way 95% of the
> > > user will be able to use the convenient way of Rebol and
> > > the small rest will have to build their solution upon
> > > i(nteractive)ftp or whatever you call it.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > AR
> > Kind of like a traditional command line version of FTP? I guess it
> > would give access to more commands that could be used more flexibly,
> > it would seem to me that to get any sort of automation would then
> > require developing the more complex scheme that is in the current
> > FTP. Am I missing the point?
> No. You hit it.
> you can do;
> insert port 'help
> print copy port
> and see what's supported.
> I think it's not overly complex to use something like
> port: open iftp://....
> insert port "Type A"
> insert port "get $data10.reamed.lablog"
> write %lablog.txt copy port
> It gives no problems with versioning and allows
> to deal with different file and text formats. If anyone
> remembers the old nntp.r, then he will see, that it's
> the same principle. One integrated protocol for easy
> access and a second version allowing all features of
> the server.
I gave your idea a lot of thought yesterday, and realized that a few
things would be easier to do with a more direct protocol (like, it would
be nice to use the usual ftp directory listing directly, instead of
having it get parsed and then reconstructing the list). I thought I
could get a primitive version banged out in an hour, but two hours later
I was still struggling (I haven't figured out an easy way to adapt Frank
Seivertson's telnet to an FTP --- the having to open a second channel
really makes ftp an altogether different beast! Maybe extending the
exisiting scheme to give the more primitaive info would be easier). I
really do "get" your point and think it is a good idea, but the project
may be beyond my skills. Maybe, I'll give it another try later on.
Thanks for the input, AR.