[pulseaudio-discuss] Pull request: Autospawn fix

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fri, 15.01.10 06:06, Tanu Kaskinen (tanuk at iki.fi) wrote:

> 
> to, 2010-01-14 kello 14:56 +0100, Lennart Poettering kirjoitti:
> > On Thu, 14.01.10 05:32, Tanu Kaskinen (tanuk at iki.fi) wrote:
> > > Simpler, yes. More compatible, not much. The only cases that I can see
> > > the proposed syntax would break are socket paths that
> > > 
> > >  * start with "[" (ie. they are relative paths, which don't make any
> > > sense anyway, I think) or
> > >  * contain commas.
> > 
> > ipv6 addresses are usually written with in [], so that the colons can
> > be distuingished from the port seperator. Kinda sucks using colons in
> > more than one context here?
> 
> Did you mean "using square brackets" instead of "using colons"? 

Yes, you are right. Sorry for the confusion.

> Colons are used in multiple contexts anyway. If you meant square
> brackets, that could be solved by separating the protocol tag in
> some other way, for
> example:
> 
> example.com:native!4242,dbus!4343

But that's not pretty!

> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_NATIVE_UNIX,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_NATIVE_TCP4,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_NATIVE_TCP6,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_NATIVE_TCP_AUTO,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_UNIX,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP4,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP6,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP_AUTO,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_TCP4,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_TCP6,
> >     PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP_AUTO
> 
> I assume that last entry was supposed to be
> PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_TCP_AUTO.

Yes, sorry. Must be hard to parse my emails properly... Sorry.

> > And writing PULSE_SERVER=gurki would be translated to
> > PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_DBUS_TCP_AUTO which means that both the dbus and the
> > native client would use that address. 
> 
> And I assume you meant PA_PARSED_ADDRESS_TCP_AUTO here also.

Yes, absolutely.

> I think this is a fine solution. Just one question: would
> "example.com:4242" be parsed as _NATIVE_TCP_AUTO, ie. ignored by D-Bus
> clients? That would be a bit inconsistent, since usually strings without
> any protocol prefix are parsed as _TCP_AUTO. Or should D-Bus clients
> maybe try connecting to the default port on example.com? The latter
> would be more compatible with existing configurations.

Good point.

Hmm. I'd probably say that we'd have the special rules that this would
be considered _NATIVE_TCP_AUTO. Even if it is a bit unsymmetric. But
connecting to non-obvious port just for fun is probably a bad idea,
for security reasons.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering                        Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/           GnuPG 0x1A015CC4