Re: bug#16026: Connection specific settings and proxies

[Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@gmx.de>]

Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

Hi Ted,

> MA> Well, I've stolen the "class" name from directory-local variables. The
> MA> concept of connection-local variables is closed to that of directory-local.
>
> MA> No problem to rename it, if it helps. And sometimes I'm even not sure
> MA> whether we need the class/profile concept; it might be even sufficient
> MA> to bind variables to connections directly, like variables can be bound
> MA> directly to buffers.
>
> I think from the user's side, it's necessary. We have to associate the
> data with a profile, which is then exposed as a configurable entity.
>
> Let's call them "connection profiles" to be very clear, since just
> "profile" can be ambiguous as well.

OK, I'll change next time I'll touch the code.

> MA> Well, currently a class is bound to a connection via a regexp, which is
> MA> used for checking the result of `file-remote-p'. This is good for Tramp,
> MA> but it is less good for url-* functionality unless `url-handler-mode' is
> MA> enabled, and it does not work for other applications like imap-based
> MA> connections.
>
> MA> Your proposal looks OK to me. U, Y and Z shall be regexps, X a symbol
> MA> (or also a regexp?). All of them shall be optional.
>
> Wonderful. I propose that the application should be a defgroup symbol,
> and every connection profile should be required to have a defgroup.
>
> That would give us an implicit connection profile hierarchy and a place
> to hook connection profile customizations at the UI level.
>
> So defining connection profiles would be something like this:
>
> (add-connection-profiles :user U :defgroup X :protocol Y :machine Z
>                          :profile 'UXYZ :vars '(...))
>
> (add-connection-profiles :profile 'general :vars '(...))

Well, I'm a little bit lost. What does the defgroup here? I understand
that replaces what you have called initially an application, but I don't
see what defcustoms shall be placed now under the defgroup
hierarchy. Could you pls give an example?

I also know that there are users reluctant to the customization
machinery. Wouldn't we loose them?

> Thanks
> Ted

Best regards, Michael.