Hi Tomasz, > > what is wrong with just using "Server", "Port", "Username" and > > "Password" fields here? > > > > Do we really wanna support different proxy servers for different > > protocol types? I don't think that is really useful. We wanna make this > > as simple as possible for the end users. And expose less settings as > > possible. > > > > > Why not following what is used everywhere: browsers sets the proxies > that way, Qt does, and many others too. > I agree that it lacks one thing here: a boolean field that enable 1 > generic proxy url/port for all (then only Http/HttpPort would be useful) or > which selectively enable different protocols. Like it is done in let's > say: firefox. > > About Username/Password, this is quite advanced settings, and then it > would require to store such pair for every type of proxy. (This is what > gnome does if I recall well). And it is actually as rare to get an > access-resticted proxy than a protocol based proxy configuration. > > I know it expose then quite much settings, but end-user is not entitled > to manipulate those on its own. I mean, it is up to UI to expose those. > Isn't so that ConnMan should be able to handle as much settings as it > could, so that UI would be able to expose in a simple way basic settings > as well as advanced settings? At least in that particular case: proxies.
actually ConnMan should only expose what we want the user be able to change. So right now, I would just agree on "Server" and "Port" manual proxy settings and then see how far we get with that. I am fine with leaving authentication details out for now. And browser etc. do a lot of things. This doesn't mean they are correct and it most certainly doesn't mean the user can make sense out of them. So just adding something with the reason that Mozilla's UI does it right now is not an argument that I would buy easily. The more I come to think about this stuff, the more I want just plain "Server" and "Port" properties. If we ever need something more, then we can just add a list of URIs that would overwrite the default. Meaning a list of "socks://xxx:901 ftp://yyy:222"; is a perfect description of proxies. And that is a lot easier to configure than having to have separate properties for different protocol types. Keep in mind that only the configuration of proxies should be done via ConnMan. The actual request for using a proxy needs to be done via pacrunner and is FindProxyForURL method. And that one can parse these nicely apart. > And is ipconfig.c the right place anyway? Right now it seems sensible since we have all the other proxy details in there as well. However it comes of course together with the service structure. And especially we need access to it via service functions do make sure we load this into pacrunner. Regards Marcel _______________________________________________ connman mailing list connman@connman.net http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
