[sword-devel] Remote Module Repository Wiki

Peter von Kaehne refdoc at gmx.net
Fri Nov 5 06:02:58 MST 2010

I think Troy, the concern is correct.

For the publisher with some decent IT muscle and budget a proper repo must be better, but for the small town church with a website and a couple of modules to share - zip and http is a must.

Having a multiplicity of methods of getting modules into the system would certainly be easier.

My preference:

1) keep current methods - it is best for huge numbers of modules and it is probably also best for anyone with enough money to have a fixed ip and a server, able to run anonymous ftp

2) add methods for local installation of zips. Look at MK Bible - pull a zip over the programme and it gets installed. This is - emphatically - not how I would want to install a large selection of modules or how I would want to publish the same, but it is probably the best usability i have seen for a frontend using only 2-3 modules (which is what MKBible is laid out for) and a small time publisher or someone who has target audience of little computer literacy


> Von: admin at bible.salterrae.net
> An: "SWORD Developers\' Collaboration Forum" <sword-devel at crosswire.org>
> Betreff: Re: [sword-devel] Remote Module Repository Wiki

> > I do understand the very real practical concerns about FTP you point
> > out, but we have practically received almost no support emails from
> > users not being able to install because FTP was blocked.  Most hosting
> > services provide FTP access.  The issue we ran into before was some
> > didn't provide anonymous ftp access, which we've rectified by adding
> > username / password fields in our repository registry and support for
> > this in our installer, and in reality to install an FTP server on a
> > windows box is trivial compared to the ongoing maintenance of assuring
> > zips are created and placed in the correct folder, an index file for the
> > zips is created and kept updated whenever anything changes, etc.
> I don't think that installing an FTP server is trivial.
> I can't agree that 'most hosting services provide FTP access.'
> Most cheep hosting services provide ftp access only for its maintainer,
> ftp access is not permitted for public use.
> HTTP services are name-based , FTP services are IP-based. So
> if one want to service an FTP server, one must own one IP address
> for it, contrary to the fact that many HTTP services can share one
> IP address.
> Furthermore FTP service needs two connections , one for control and
> one for data. one is outgoing, another is incoming. this make
> firewall rules very complexing.
> Servicing an HTTP server is easy, and servicing an FTP server is annoying.
> If both methods can serve same jobs, I would rather choose HTTP .
> >
> > It might seem trivial to us, and might actually be trivial for the
> > publishers, in practice (and might eventually be how we end up going if
> > we do find real roadblocks with our current FTP mechanism), but:
> >
> -- 
> admin at bible.salterrae.net
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page

GMX DSL Doppel-Flat ab 19,99 &euro;/mtl.! Jetzt auch mit 
gratis Notebook-Flat! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

More information about the sword-devel mailing list