From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Bkyjy-0007yU-HQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:25:06 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Bkyjv-0007yA-86 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:25:05 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bkyjv-0007y2-4F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:25:03 -0400 Received: from [216.254.0.203] (helo=mail3.speakeasy.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1Bkyh5-0001GH-Lk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:22:08 -0400 Received: from dsl081-088-222.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [192.168.111.2]) ([64.81.88.222]) (envelope-sender ) by mail3.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 15 Jul 2004 05:22:03 -0000 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Win98: how to exchange data with Linux From: "John R. Hogerhuis" In-Reply-To: <1089851909.19121.28.camel@shawn.local> References: <1089671145.12301.10.camel@aragorn> <200407130924.58879.vaise@votreservice.com> <1089727701.7843.58.camel@espiron.av7.local> <40F3EF20.2020802@kadu.net> <40F3F5B1.2040908@kadu.net> <40F41A65.8050807@volny.cz> <1089740739.17526.3.camel@aragorn> <40F422BB.8020908@kadu.net> <1089742289.13010.20.camel@aragorn> <40F42A9D.5000901@kadu.net> <20040714024203.GD6436@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org> <40F501E8.7030405@kadu.net> <40F514D1.1010008@bellard.org> <1089823480.1160.124.camel@aragorn> <1089851909.19121.28.camel@shawn.local> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1089869143.15786.193.camel@aragorn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:25:43 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: jhoger@pobox.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 17:38, Leigh Dyer wrote: > I also like the idea of a web server instead of an FTP server. A basic > web server would be quite a bit easier to write than an FTP server, and > it could later be extended with a basic WebDAV implementation to support > more filesystem-like read-write access. > > The downside is that WebDAV is possibly more complex to implement than > FTP, and a HTTP server without WebDAV is only really a partial solution, > since there's no really easy way to do guest->host transfers. > I don't know what WebDAV is but if you implement http GET and PUT you have a full solution to transferring files, just no security. OP just wanted a way to do easy clipboard between the two, no security there either. But usual FTP doesn't give you real security anyway, so no big difference really. Security can be added in the form of cgi scripts, authentication, even encryption (HTTPS or SSL) later on. Just need to pick the right web server to embed, and figure out the business end of it that integrates with SMB (would have to utilize samba...). And actually I don't think we would need to write yet another web server. There are several on Freshmeat, including lightweight ones, for the picking. Seems kind of exciting prospect actually. Imagine you have some legacy part of a business process running under windows. With an easy file sharing scheme like this, Windows+app becomes a black box with enough inputs/outputs and levers (some HTTP POST commands) to run essentially headless. Later, -- John.