smb://
Kevin Colby
kevinc at grainsystems.com
Fri Dec 29 16:21:51 GMT 2000
Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> [...] still I will push to add workgroup searchability in the string:
> smb://[[domain;]user[:password]@][workgroup]server/[share/[path/]]
Why? I think it has been clearly shown that the case below (the now
infamous misconfigured network) is the only possible scenario where
a distinction needs to be made between a workgroup and a server.
The issue is confused by trying to use a single general design as in
the above example. It is important to note that the following two
syntaxes are mutually exclusive:
smb://[[domain;]user[:password]@]server/[share/[path/]]
smb://workgroup/
Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> the proposed workgroup#server syntax would resolve also this case forcing
> "workgroup" to be the workgroup into which you want to find a server and
> not the misconfigured servername.
This is true, but is the _only_ use of such a differentiation. So, what
do we sacrifice for this? A lot. Using "#" would be the one exception
to the RFC in the whole URI design. Are you willing to give up on RFC
compliance in order to accommodate a workaround for a broken network?
If you ask me, the price is too high. Blame a bad network and move on.
- Kevin Colby
kevinc at grainsystems.com
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list