[SAGA-RG] saga core spec - final call

['Andre Merzky']

Yes, they should - thats the idea after all.  I'll fix that.

Thanks, Andre.


Quoting [Hartmut Kaiser] (Oct 08 2007):
> 
> Andre,
> 
> Shouldn't the constructors of namespace, file, directory etc. take url's now
> (in stead of the string parameters)? This wouldn't even break existing code
> (at least in C++) as long as there is a non-explicit url constructor takig a
> string only.
> 
> Regards Hartmut
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: saga-rg-bounces at ogf.org 
> > [mailto:saga-rg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andre Merzky
> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:17 PM
> > To: Ceriel Jacobs
> > Cc: SAGA RG; Andre Merzky
> > Subject: Re: [SAGA-RG] saga core spec - final call
> > 
> > Good point, and my mistake.  I changes that in the spec.
> > 
> > Thanks, Andre.
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting [Ceriel Jacobs] (Oct 08 2007):
> > > 
> > > Hi Andre,
> > > 
> > > now that the URL specs are in the repository, I have a 
> > question about it:
> > > why are there separate methods for "username" and 
> > "password"? rfc2396 
> > > mostly talks about a "userinfo" token, with the user:password 
> > > possibility made scheme-specific. In fact, the rfc2396 text warns 
> > > against having passwords in there, because of the security 
> > risk. So, I 
> > > would prefer set_userinfo/get_userinfo methods instead of 
> > the get_[username|password]/set_[username|password].
> > > 
> > > Ceriel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, 
> > however, a significant number of electrons were terribly 
> > inconvenienced.
> > --
> >   saga-rg mailing list
> >   saga-rg at ogf.org
> >   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/saga-rg
> > 
> 



-- 
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however,
a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.