mike-jumper commented on pull request #578: URL: https://github.com/apache/guacamole-client/pull/578#issuecomment-733162615
> Just for my own knowledge -- is there a reason that we could not just send the protocol and form information through the websocket-tunnel? Could that cause race conditions? No, the reason that forms cannot be exposed automaticlaly as part of the tunnel is separation of concerns. The tunnel exists as a low-level component defined by guacamole-common and guacamole-common-js, whereas the concept of fields and forms are specific to the Guacamole webapp and its extension API (guacamole-ext). Only the protocol name and arbitrary parameter name/value pairs exist at that low a level. Before deciding on the current implementation, I also considered: * **Allowing `ConnectionGroup` and `ActiveConnection` to expose a `GuacamoleConfiguration`, possibly by moving the relevant function from `Connection` to `Connectable`.** This would have required more substantial changes, and would added further complexity to the part of the client-side code that pulls this information. * **Modifying the `argv` and `required` instructions to expose the protocol name.** This feels redundant and would break backward compatibility for the established `argv` instruction. Adding a new instruction that simply exposes the protocol name could be another approach. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
