Re: [Monotone-devel] url schemes

[Markus Schiltknecht]

Hello Philipp,

Philipp Gröschler wrote:
> Then just allow a new Monotone user, as what I am, a question:

Sure.

> Which are those dumb servers? Following the mailing list, I thought the
> main talk on this thread is about how a new 'destination address and
> everything else syntax' for the sync command on the command line could
> look like. Or on protocol level, different mtn processes talking to each
> other. What have I missed?

There's a branch, net.venge.monotone.dumb, which features a mechanism to
export a monotone database to a "dumb" http or ftp server, from where
other users can pull again. These are called "dumb", because they only
serve files, without any monotone logic behind. However, it's pretty
convenient for people on shared hosting servers.

> > I disagree, but I guess that's a matter of taste. I just happen to
> > like RESTful APIs (which are not just about the syntax of the URL, but
> > involve usage of GET/PUT/DELETE http commands).
>
> Seems to be a different point of view. I am looking at the command line.
> You seem to be looking at protocol level. Sorry for not making that clear.

Hm.. I see. But.. looking at the command line only, we could use
whatever URL we want. We wouldn't have to use a URL at all. From a CLI
users point of view, I'd even favor the current syntax for netsync. So
what do you want a mtn:// url at all?

> > I'm arguing that most users don't care, where exactly code is
> > involved. Heck, code is involved everywhere, it's just a matter of
> > "what does the code do".
>
> That was just an example, let me express that differently. A URL which
> looks like
>
>   http://www.xyz.org/branch/net.venge.monotone
>
> doesn't let me know which part of it carries the command or call and
> which part carries the argument for this command. On second view, one
> might discern this, but it misses a clear and intuitive separator. That
> might be personal taste, and also might set off problems with dumb
> servers. Again, different league. Look at my first question above.

Being able to use the same URL for the web interface, for monotone and
for clever as well as dumb servers seems much more important to me, than
sticking to "?" as a separator for no reason, except simplicity of
coding it. Or put it another way: why should "/branch/" not be a better
and more descriptive separator?

But probably I'm just too focused on nuskool, having URLs like these in
mind:

  http://www.xyz.org/revision/d558f906d0d597ac7ac01f891fe46f994dc0946c
  https://www.xyz.org/file/a5a5ce3a1ed7c9dead79c526e382237697d54c04

maybe even:
  ftp://www.xyz.org/branch/net.venge.monotone/botan/sha160.cpp

Any kind of separator other than '/' would just be disturbing there. Or
do you really expect people to remember where to put the '?', before or
after the 'branch' or 'revision'.

Slashes are common in URLs. But I think only very few people manage to
remember URLs with arguments, i.e. with a mixture of slashes and .

> Things which look like an URL should also work like one. In the last few
> days I've seen lots of examples on the list which wouldn't work like one
> would expect. Again I use the word intuitive, because I like software
> which I can use without reading all its documentation. Just like "this
> one uses URLs, there are this few parameters, let's roll".

I full heartedly agree. But I fail to see how multiple separators and
intuition fit together. ;-)

> Possibly I am in the wrong thread now (should have answered on "sync
> mtn://" again) and possibly we are at cross purposes. Sorry for
> interrupting, but you where asking for thoughts.

Yeah, that's fine, don't be sorry.

Regards

Markus