Re: CVSRoot

Milos Kleint wrote:
> 
> Martin Entlicher wrote:
> 
> >Ojares Rami EINT wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Should it be so that there are two different classes
> >>ServerConnection: opens socket to host and starts cvs server
> >>LocalConnection: starts cvs server on local machine.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, as Milos explained, :local: connection method is not a "connection to"
> >something, but rather client+server together. It directly acts on the
> >repository without any client-server communication. The JavaCVS does not
> >implement the server and thus is not capable of :local: connections. As a
> >workaround for that, ServerConnection was used, which connects to the "cvs
> >server".
> >
> >But I agree, that ServerConnection should be able to connect to remote servers.
> >We can then implement a separate LocalConnection, that would connect to the
> >"cvs server" as a workaround for the real :local: mode.
> >I've never used/tested ServerConnection. IMHO :server: method is not much used
> >anyway and for local connection it does not make much sense to use JavaCVS,
> >since you need to use the cvs.exe as a server anyway. In NetBeans we use
> >JavaCVS only for :pserver: method, but :server: mode can be handy as well.
> >
> >
> 
> I might be talking gibberish, but how do you connect to a remote cvs
> server  using the :server: method? since it's just 2 processes
> communicating using their input and output streams, it might not be
> possible/reasonable. for remote stuff, one should use :pserver: or :ext:
> :server: makes IMHO sense only for local machine and even there it's
> mainly a workaround.
> just my 2 cents.

Well, I should read the manual first:
http://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs-1.12.1/cvs_2.html#SEC9

There's the clarification:
":server: method specifies an internal rsh client, which is supported only by
some CVS ports." Thus it's like :ext:, but with a buit-in rsh rather then
external rsh (or another remote shell defined by CVS_RSH). According to this we
should probably use SSHConnection for both :server: and :ext: method; I suppose
that no one is using rsh any more because of security reasons.

The LocalConnection would be more like a :fork:. Since in the functionality
there should be no distinction between :local: and :fork:, we can map both to
LocalConnection.

Does it make more sense now?

-Martin

> 
> Milos
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]