Re(2): FTP in the Finder
Re(2): FTP in the Finder
- Subject: Re(2): FTP in the Finder
- From: Jens Bauer <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:14:26 +0100
Hi everybody,
On Thu, 28 Mar, 2002, Quinn <email@hidden> wrote:
>
At 8:44 -0800 28/3/02, Eric Gundrum wrote:
>
>I still argue that it does not matter that FTP is not a file system. I have
>
>not analyzed this closely, but I never heard a complete argument, either. I
>
>think a Foreign File System Plugin (or whatever OSX calls it) can be
>
>implemented for FTP.
>
>
The biggest problem I see with FTP as a file system is that it
>
doesn't support byte range reads. So, to read 5 bytes form the
>
middle of a 100 MB file, you have to download the entire file.
>
That's going to introduce file opening latencies that really mess up
>
applications, like the Finder, which expect to be able to open files
>
quickly.
I don't know how much work it would be, but the Finder could probably be
fixed, so it wouldn't have the problem anymore. Ofcourse I don't know how
many applications we're talking about in this case.
FTP resume could be preferred if available. If not, let's hope that the
user only want to update his index.html and logo.gif files on some Web-
server which is located somewhere out of town.
Would there be a need for reading from the middle of a large file on the
net; a file that is too large to be downloaded completely ?
Would there be any need for writing (which is even harder btw) to a file
of the same size: large; which could not be done by downloading, patching
and uploading it ?
If the FTP-server is located on a LAN, it wouldn't be too much trouble to
download the file completely and upload it when the modification has been
done.
FTP would only be used whenever it isn't possible to use anything better,
right ?
-Say, if the user owns a Mac OS X server, (s)he would probably use file
sharing instead.
Extending the FTP protocol could solve the problems. Commands like "Read
range", "Write range", "CRC range" could help on the speed, but would
also require that everyone adopts these changes, which would probably be
easy in the Linux and Unix world, but MS would brew their own
incompatible one as usual.
The plugin-interface *could* be split into 2 "levels", one for block
access, one for "load/save" only. If the user tried to block-access a
"load-/save-only" "drive", (s)he would get an error-code back, which
would then again bring up a dialog box saying that you can't do that.
My opinion:
It's possible to do it, but I'm not sure it would be worth it.
Adding a slow feature to Mac OS X is not going to impress anyone!
If it's going to be implemented, don't implement it before there is a
good solution and the plugin interface is ready.
Love,
Jens
--
Jens Bauer, Faster Software.
-Let's make the World better, shall we ?
_______________________________________________
macnetworkprog mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/macnetworkprog
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.