Hi Sebastian,
Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> Hi Tobi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 11:36:11PM +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> > Today Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > > When talking to a local daemon (thru a UNIX socket), relative path names
> > > are
> > > resolved to absolute path names to allow for transparent integration into
> > > existing solutions (as requested by Tobi).
> > >
> > > However, when talking to a remote daemon, absolute path names are not
> > > allowed,
> > > since path name translation is done by the server (relative to the base
> > > directory).
> >
> > am I reading the code correctly? You do not
> > rewrite a request if it is sent remotely, but you do not complain
> > if a remote request uses an absolute path either ?
>
> I do complain if a remote request uses an absolute path:
>
> + if (*path == '/') /* absolute path */
> + {
> + if (! is_unix)
>
> /* i.e. this is a remote request */
>
> + {
> + rrd_set_error ("absolute path names not allowed when talking "
> + "to a remote daemon");
> + return (NULL);
> + }
> + /* else: nothing to do */
> + }
>
> Later, if get_path() returns NULL, the rrdc_*() functions return with an
> error.
>
> A relative path name is sent to a remote daemon unmodified.
guess I was a bit tired yesterday :-)
cheers
tobi
>
> Cheers,
> Sebastian
>
>
--
Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland
http://it.oetiker.ch t...@oetiker.ch ++41 62 775 9902 / sb: -9900
_______________________________________________
rrd-developers mailing list
rrd-developers@lists.oetiker.ch
https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
