# Re: More comments on the mailserver URL scheme

Rick Hudson (hudson@yough.oit.umass.edu)
Mon, 26 Jun 1995 09:58:34 -0400

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Terry Allen: "Re: Simple comparison of URNs"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Simple comparison of URNs"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "More comments on the mailserver URL scheme"

    Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 09:58:34 -0400

    From: hudson@yough.oit.umass.edu (Rick Hudson)

    Message-Id: <9506261358.AA06385@yough.oit.umass.edu.>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: More comments on the mailserver URL scheme

>>>>> Someone said

>> I think it is an arguement for the client and the server to agree on how
>> long a URL will be and well-known limits is the easiest way to do
>> that. Negotiating a length on each transaction is going to cost, and thus
>> we probably want a fixed limit. I just can't help but think how much
>> trouble we went through to increase the file name size in UNIX a few years
>> ago...

The current practice around here is to pass server environment information in
the form of a (sometimes long) URL to the browser who passes it back so the
server can rebuild the environment. One can do neat things like implement
database query interfaces using this functionality. This is greatly
complicated if we put an arbitray limit on URL lengths.

- Rick

- Next message: Terry Allen: "Re: Simple comparison of URNs"
- Previous message: Daniel LaLiberte: "Simple comparison of URNs"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Hoffman: "More comments on the mailserver URL scheme"