Michael Albinus <[email protected]> writes: > Eshel Yaron <[email protected]> writes: > >> Hi Michael, > > Hi Eshel, > >> Thanks! It makes sense and I think we could make it work. > > I will check where we need changes. And documentation. I don't know > whether it will be ready for Tramp 2.8.1.3, which is already tested and > scheduled for release end of this month. Let's see.
Great, and no pressure for the upcoming release. >> My only concern is this: IIUC, tramp-connection-properties is meant for >> users to override tramp-methods parameters that were defined by the >> method author, but here we'd be (ab)using tramp-connection-properties >> as part of the method definition. > > That's not an abuse. Overwriting tramp-login-program is a common (and > documented, I believe) use case. Another use case is to overwrite > tramp-connection-timeout for sudo-like methods. And in general it can be > used to tweak tramp-login-args. People do so. The people who do so are users, right? My point was that here we'd be relying on tramp-connection-properties as part of the method definition, not as something that users configure. Namely, when users will run kubed-tramp-enable to enable the kubedv2 method, it'll modify tramp-connection-properties at the same time as it adds the method to tramp-methods. (Note that this means that the tramp-login-program in tramp-methods is never actually used.) Are there any packages/methods that modify tramp-connection-properties? I searched a bit and couldn't find any. > [...] > >> (The mismatch is also apparent in the >> fact that we use a regexp that only looks at the method name.) In that >> sense, ISTM that a similar generalization of tramp-methods would be a >> little nicer. > > But this *is* a generalization of tramp-methods, isn't it? What I meant was allowing tramp-login-program in tramp-methods to be a function, instead of doing that in tramp-connection-properties. That way we wouldn't have to touch tramp-connection-properties in the method definition, just tramp-methods. >> But again, in practice, I think it could get the job done. >> WDYT? > > You might check in parallel how it works in your case. Please ping me > when there is a problem. Will do! Thanks, Eshel
