Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reading a remote Filesystem

by arturo (Vicar)
on May 12, 2003 at 16:02 UTC ( #257476=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Re: Reading a remote Filesystem
in thread Reading a remote Filesystem

Hmm, perhaps my intentions behind "whys and wherefores" were not clear; my point was merely that, depending on which reasons were operative in the present case, an HTTP-based approach might be appropriate. Let me address your points one by one, comparing an HTTP-based solution to (direct) FTP

  1. passwords aren't required for HTTP access; if they are, channel can be encrypted with SSL
  2. HTTP standardly uses three ports: port 80, port 80, and port 80. HTTPS uses port 443. Firewall administrators know these ports very well.
  3. Apache (e.g.) is pretty secure, even more so if you turn of unnecessary modules.

As far as the poster has so far told us, this system involves read-only access (see the original node title), so the upload issue is, AFAIK, moot (tho' I agree it would be a point against if r/w access is desired). The clients request the files from server A, which is supposed to be able to list and read the files on server B; my suggestion is that HTTP is a possible (given what we've been told so far) channel for A to talk to B.

My point in advocating HTTP as a possible approach is that it's pretty simple. It may be inappropriate, depending on the specifics of the system CodeJunkie is working with.

If not P, what? Q maybe?
"Sidney Morgenbesser"


Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Reading a remote Filesystem

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://257476]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-31 04:44 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (244 votes), past polls