apparently there aspects in implementing ftp server left exercise reader of rfc (959). (like response list command.) amounts trying figure out general consensus among other implementations, , doing that.
since there no explicit command move files 1 directory another, i've found done rename commands (rnfr, rnto). example, in winscp, if drag file /data/dir/file parent directory (..), does
rnfr /data/dir/file rnto /data/file are there clients in wild use relative paths in wild? example, if current working directory /data/dir, there clients this?
rnfr file rnto ../file or common practice servers understand renames relative paths command line clients?
the rnfr , rnto explicit commands move files 1 directory another.
so can use them move files between directories. on *nix operating systems rename , move same operation (at least long stay same file system).
both commands take pathname argument, other ftp commands (e.g. cwd, dele).
rnfr <sp> <pathname> <crlf> rnto <sp> <pathname> <crlf> regarding pathname, rfc 959 says in section 4.1.3:
the syntax of pathnames must conform server site conventions (with standard defaults applicable)
i believe means can reasonably expect servers understand .. in rnto, servers understand cwd ..
if there (gui?) clients make use of this? wouldn't so. why client bother try find common root of move operation , calculate relative path, if can use absolute path?
as @remy commented already, directory listing format standardized mlsd , mlst commands in rfc 3659.
most modern ftp servers support these, notable exception of iis ftp (what cannot called modern ftp server anyway).
Comments
Post a Comment