On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 09:10:04PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 11:29:36AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 08/14/2012 12:58 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > > > > > >> While we are at this, let me bring out another issue. Gluster > supports 3 > > > >> transport types: > > > >> > > > >> - socket in which case the server will be hostname, ipv4 or ipv4 > address. > > > >> - rdma in which case server will be interpreted similar to socket. > > > >> - unix in which case server will be a path to unix domain socket > and this > > > >> will look like any other filesystem path. (Eg. > /tmp/glusterd.socket) > > > >> > > > >> I don't think we can fit 'unix' within the standard URI scheme (RFC > 3986) > > > >> easily, but I am planning to specify the 'unix' transport as below: > > > >> > > > >> gluster://[/path/to/unix/domain/socket]/volname/image?transport=unix > > > >> > > > >> i,e., I am asking the user to put the unix domain socket path within > > > >> square brackets when transport type is unix. > > > >> > > > >> Do you think this is fine ? > > > > > > > > Never saw something like this before, but it does seem reasonable to > me. > > > > Excludes ] from the valid characters in the file name of the socket, > but > > > > that shouldn't be a problem in practice. > > > > > > Bikeshedding, but I prefer > > > > > > gluster:///path/to/unix/domain/socket:/volname/image?transport=unix > > > > So if the unix domain socket is /tmp/glusterd.socket, then this would > look like: > > > > gluster:///tmp/glusterd.socket:/volname/image?transport=unix. > > > > So you are saying : will the separator b/n the unix domain socket path > > and rest of the URI components. > > > > Unless you or others strongly feel about this, I would like to go with > > [ ] based spec, which I feel is less prone to errors like missing a colon > > by mistake :) > > > > > > > > as being more similar to file://, or even > > > > > > gluster:///path/to/unix/domain/socket/volname/image?transport=unix > > > > > > with the last two components implied to be part of the payload, not the > > > path. > > > > Note that image is a file path by itself like /dir1/a.img. So I guess it > > becomes difficult to figure out where the unix domain socket path ends > > and rest of the URI components begin w/o a separator in between. > > IMHO this is all gross. URIs already have a well defined way to provide > multiple parameters, dealing with escaping of special characters. ie query > parameters. The whole benefit of using URI syntax is to let apps process > the URIs using standard APIs. We should not be trying to define some extra > magic encoding to let us stuff 2 separate parameters into the path > component > since that means apps have to now write custom parsing code again. Either > the UNIX socket path, or the volume path should be in the URI path, not > both. The other part should be a URI parameter. I'd really expect us to > use: > > gluster:///volname/image?transport=unix&sockpath=/path/to/unix/sock > > +1 ronnie sahlberg
