Why not have the syntax be optional? For example,
<scp file="host:/home/chuck/*" todir="/home/gus"
identity="${user.dir}/.ssh/identity" passphrase="You
know it" />
vs.
<scp file="user:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/chuck/*"
tofile="/home/gus" />
It would basically be looking for an '@' character
then if it's not there checking for RSA certificates
and passphrases.
For RSA auth, you don't need a user name or password.
Just your RSA certificiate and passphrase. This is
very similiar to how SCP works on the command line,
and it would be familiar to users.
BTW, I tried sending some code to the list, and I was
rejected for being greater than 100K. All I need now
is some tests for the task. Documentation, the code,
and renamed packages are done. I was going to send it
to the list for people to try out before I actually
submit it.
charlie
The code would simply parse the file/tofile
> ATTACHMENT part 10 message/rfc822
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SCP Ant Syntax (was Contributing to
> Optional Tasks)
> From: Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 24 Feb 2003 08:51:07 +0100
>
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Rob H. Anderson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should break host, user and password
> into their own
> > field...
>
> If you split host out of the file/tofile attribute,
> you'll need a way
> to specify which side is the remote side (in the
> single file case).
>
> Stefan
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
