|
 |
In article <36b0a016.0@news.povray.org> , par### [at] my-dejanews com (Ron
Parker) wrote:
> Why is this even necessary? Are network file systems
> like NFS or SMB too cumbersome? If you're going to
> have to run an HTTP server on the master machine
> anyway, why not run a more lightweight custom protocol
> better suited to providing the needed information? You
> might even consider a protocol that can just send the
> entire preparsed frame and global settings to each client
> rather than duplicating the parsing effort.
I agree to a certain extend, however, a limitation to the host file
specification part (e.g.
http://www.netspace.org/users/dwb/url-guide.html#file ) of it might be
useful to get more abstract optional file and path names on systems with
different directory/folder separators. And the URL style would also
eliminate the leadind space volume name on Macs and otehr potential problems
like this.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
