Re: netsync over ssh revisited

Richard Levitte <[email protected]> writes:

> In message <[email protected]> on Thu, 06
> Sep 2012 05:56:12 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte <[email protected]>
> said:
>
> richard> I had a look in std_hooks.lua and noticed the ssh+ux: schema, which
> richard> basically does what I'm after...
>
> Speaking of this, I'm thinking about that scheme name, and it comes
> out as odd to me...  there seems to be a concensus out there that a
> protocol transported through another protocol should be named
> {protocol}+{transport}.  ssh+ux: does the exact opposite, and ux+ssh:
> would be more appropriate.  Furthermore, since that's basically UNIX
> domain sockets piped through SSH, and mtn supports local UNIX domain
> sockets through the scheme local: (because netxx does that, that's
> why), I'm pondering that the ssh+ux: scheme should really be renamed
> to local+ssh: (of course, we can keep ssh+ux: as an alias).
>
> Thoughts?

local+ssh sounds more like your second scheme

Attempting to generalize/abstract a naming convention:

    ssh {host} socat - UNIX-CONNECT:{path}

I'm not clear what's a protocol and what's a transport here; it seems to
me the actual data exchange protocol is always mtn (that defines how to
exchange certs, keys, revisions, and possibly authentication), and both
ssh and unix domain sockets are transports.

This connects to a running remote multi-session server; other choices
start a single session server.

    ssh {host} socat - TCP-CONNECT:localhost:4691

here we have ssh and tcp sockets as transport, and it connects to a
running remote multi-session server

other choices:

    mtn:

tcp sockets as transport, connects to a running remote multi-session server

perhaps this should just be named tcp? 

    file:

unix domain sockets as transport, start a single-session local server.

    ssh:

ssh as transport, start a single-session remote server

> Either way, I realised that the possible uris aren't fully documented
> in the manual, so I'm doing so now.  

That's good.

> And I think it would be good to have a consensus on local+ssh: vs
> ux+ssh: vs ssh+ux: before the added documentation gets published.

Now is the time to rename it, if we are going to. But so far, I don't
see a clear naming convention. 


This discussion suggests a way to make file: work on Windows native; use
TCP sockets to connect between the client and server instances of mtn.

-- 
-- Stephe