Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: patch proposal

Expand Messages
  • Hari Hendaryanto
    ... ok, i ll wait for the good news. Powered By http://www.3g-net.net
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 1, 2011
      On 8/2/2011 2:29 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
      > Hari Hendaryanto:
      >> Hello,
      >>
      >> I've created a patch that mimicked tcp_table. however, the table lookups
      >> are directed to a unix domain socket instead of tcp servers.
      >> Actually, the patch itself is a modification of the source code of
      >> tcp_table.
      >>
      >> Map names have the form usock:/path/to/socket
      >>
      >> If i'm not on the right path, can i request similiar feature.? (it would
      >> be great to have both tcp|unix-domain-socket_table)
      >> tcp_table is great, its simple protocol allows us to talk to various
      >> applications.
      >>
      > This really sounds like a name space design issue, since the
      > map-specific protocol does not change.
      >
      > foo:tcp:host:port
      > foo:unix:/pathname
      > foo:tls:tcp:host:port
      >
      > This needs further thought.
      >
      > Wietse
      >

      ok, i'll wait for the good news.

      Powered By http://www.3g-net.net
    • Hari Hendaryanto
      ... I have another scenario tcp:host:port tcp:/path/name The reason why i wanted this feature is, by using unix domain socket i can protect my backend server
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 3, 2011
        On 8/2/2011 2:29 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
        > Hari Hendaryanto:
        >> Hello,
        >>
        >> I've created a patch that mimicked tcp_table. however, the table lookups
        >> are directed to a unix domain socket instead of tcp servers.
        >> Actually, the patch itself is a modification of the source code of
        >> tcp_table.
        >>
        >> Map names have the form usock:/path/to/socket
        >>
        >> If i'm not on the right path, can i request similiar feature.? (it would
        >> be great to have both tcp|unix-domain-socket_table)
        >> tcp_table is great, its simple protocol allows us to talk to various
        >> applications.
        >>
        > This really sounds like a name space design issue, since the
        > map-specific protocol does not change.
        >
        > foo:tcp:host:port
        > foo:unix:/pathname
        > foo:tls:tcp:host:port
        >
        > This needs further thought.
        >
        > Wietse
        >
        >
        >
        I have another scenario

        tcp:host:port
        tcp:/path/name

        The reason why i wanted this feature is, by using unix domain socket i
        can protect my backend server from interference on multiuser environment.
        while tcp server is adequate for my single administrator/user
        environment server.

        TIA


        Powered By http://www.3g-net.net
      • Wietse Venema
        Hari Hendaryanto: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] ... Sorry, tcp:/path/name is bad user interface design. Everywhere else in Postfix, one has
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 3, 2011
          Hari Hendaryanto:
          [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
          > On 8/2/2011 2:29 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
          > > Hari Hendaryanto:
          > >> Hello,
          > >>
          > >> I've created a patch that mimicked tcp_table. however, the table lookups
          > >> are directed to a unix domain socket instead of tcp servers.
          > >> Actually, the patch itself is a modification of the source code of
          > >> tcp_table.
          > >>
          > >> Map names have the form usock:/path/to/socket
          > >>
          > >> If i'm not on the right path, can i request similiar feature.? (it would
          > >> be great to have both tcp|unix-domain-socket_table)
          > >> tcp_table is great, its simple protocol allows us to talk to various
          > >> applications.
          > >>
          > > This really sounds like a name space design issue, since the
          > > map-specific protocol does not change.
          > >
          > > foo:tcp:host:port
          > > foo:unix:/pathname
          > > foo:tls:tcp:host:port
          > >
          > > This needs further thought.
          > >
          > > Wietse
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > I have another scenario
          >
          > tcp:host:port
          > tcp:/path/name

          Sorry, tcp:/path/name is bad user interface design. Everywhere else
          in Postfix, one has to specify the socket TYPE before the socket
          NAME (with BC compatibility for programs such as the SMTP client
          or TCP map that were desigined initially for TCP sockets only).

          > The reason why i wanted this feature is, by using unix domain socket i
          > can protect my backend server from interference on multiuser environment.
          > while tcp server is adequate for my single administrator/user
          > environment server.

          And I have to consider the longer-term issue of keeping the system
          usable as it evolves. This means I will fight to keep the use
          interface clean.

          Wietse
        • Hari Hendaryanto
          ... that s fine with me, on my first. patch i m using usock as dict type, since unix already used for unix user/group lookup table. but it has been said
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 3, 2011
            On 8/3/2011 9:23 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
            >> I have another scenario
            >>
            >> tcp:host:port
            >> tcp:/path/name
            > Sorry, tcp:/path/name is bad user interface design. Everywhere else
            > in Postfix, one has to specify the socket TYPE before the socket
            > NAME (with BC compatibility for programs such as the SMTP client
            > or TCP map that were desigined initially for TCP sockets only).
            that's fine with me, on my first. patch i'm using "usock" as dict type,
            since "unix" already
            used for unix user/group lookup table. but it has been said that there
            was namespace
            issue with that design. well, i guest i have to look for another third
            party work arround :)

            >
            >> The reason why i wanted this feature is, by using unix domain socket i
            >> can protect my backend server from interference on multiuser environment.
            >> while tcp server is adequate for my single administrator/user
            >> environment server.
            > And I have to consider the longer-term issue of keeping the system
            > usable as it evolves. This means I will fight to keep the use
            > interface clean.
            This is very understandable to me :) . i just want to connect to unix
            domain socket with
            with a similar protocol as tcp_table. thanks a lot for attention Wietse.

            > Wietse
            >


            Powered By http://www.3g-net.net
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.