Wirt consults QCTermites everywhere:

> Several people have asked in the past if the blobs could be
> loaded onto another server and I've said no -- .....
>
> However, I'm about the change my mind.

I'm shocked....  *shocked*....   ;-)

> .... FTP has inherent security problems .....

Speaking just from our site's perspective, there is another
reason being able to load the blobs from another server would
be very useful:  We have a number of NT servers which are
the official repository for various technical procedures, etc.
For better or for worse, those are the machines which will
continue to be the official record of those BLOBs.  Being
able to "merge" those procedures with IMAGE data from our
HP 3000 in QCTerm without having to keep and maintain extra
local 3000 copies would add a lot of flexibility and save on
maintenance....


> FTP is not the only game in town, however.
>
> In the new version of QCTerm, the blobs directory will be
> capable of being put on any server anywhere in the world.

:-)


> I am reasonably now 100% convinced that we will switch over
> in the next few days to primarily using HTTP .....
>
>      /resourceserver {http://aics-research.com/qcterm_blobs}
>      /resources {alfredo.wav apollo13.mid hplogo.bmp ... }

.... sounds reasonable to me.....


> The question I would genuinely appreciate any feedback on is
> this: Is there any reason to also maintain FTP in addition to
> HTTP? Its syntax could be easily accomodated in this manner:
>
>      /resourceserver
> {ftp://aics-research.com/FTPGUEST/PUB/qcterm_blobs}


I would say YES;  also maintain above FTP option.


> From the initial URL, we could easily decide which protocol
> to use.

....  so I gather it would not be a lot more work for the QCTerm
development team....  if true, another reason for YES on FTP.


> While allowing both options, FTP and HTTP, would maintain
> more flexibility, I can also say with absolute certainty that
> it will also generate more confusion -- ......

....  with the above simple protocol choices, not too much, I
would hope....


> Simplicity and a lack of options has a quality all of its own,
> and one that should never be dismissed.

True....  BUT:  I would guess that for some time (maybe a long
time) a relatively small percentage of HP 3000's are going to
be running Apache in production.  If HTTP is the *only* BLOB
method;  and a site is NOT running Apache on the 3000;  then
by definition they will have to deal with an additional non-MPE
box....  now for many sites (like ours) that is a non-issue.....
But if there are any number of small sites who have and
expect to continue to have a 3000 as their only server, then
dropping the FTP option might be a problem.  As the simplest
and most direct "BLOB distribution" mechanism, I would gently
argue for NOT completely dropping FTP....  HTTP as default is
fine, though.....

> Thus the question again, can you think of any scenario where
> you would much greatly prefer (or absolutely require) FTP
> over HTTP?

Absolutely require ??..  NO....  Prefer in some cases (even if
some of our BLOBs as per above are on various and sundry
NT servers):  Probably;  so we would be able to control,
store, and back up our system including related BLOB data
on ONE machine.  In fact, except for BLOBs that are required
to live on other NT boxes, keeping the related BLOBs on the
3000 is very likely our preferred option;  especially those
BLOBs that are heavily and routinely used....

Ken Sletten