duplicity-team team mailing list archive

[edso <edgar.soldin@xxxxxx>]

On 04.12.2019 16:49, Carl A. Adams wrote:
>>> I had added register_backend to s3_boto3_backend, keeping it self contained
>>> and following the convention in the ssh backends.  The backends do not seem
>>> entirely consistent on this point, with ssh having the two flavors entirely
>>> self contained, and boto and cf separating the implementation from the
>>> registration.
>>
>> they are not. they were implemented before we switched to the prefixed scheme
>> approach.
>>
>>> The primary advantage of separating the registration from the
>>> implementation of the backend appears to be selecting backend implementation
>>> by CLI option, which I was told was now discouraged.    FWIW, I'd say "boto"
>>> is not correct for this new backend anyway, since boto3 is really a
>> completely
>>> different library, which can coexist with boto in a project.  If we do want
>> to
>>> register the new backend along side the older s3 backends in a common
>>> location, I'd suggest something named "s3" over "boto", reflecting the
>> backup
>>> server type rather than the particular implementation.
>>
>> not sure what you mean here.
>>
>
>
> Two things: 1) registering in botobackend.py as requested seems to conflict with the request to follow the newer prefix conventions (where the example of SSH registers each in their own ssh_<backend>.py).  I followed the SSH convention when I renamed it the new backend s3_boto3_backend.py.   2) If i do register the all the s3 backends in a common py file, calling that py file "boto" isn't right for the new one - boto and boto3 are completely separate. If that's the registration convention you want to follow, I'd suggest "s3backend.py", which would collect the two older "boto" backends, and the newer "boto3" backend. But, I don't see the point of breaking the encapsulation of "everything in the new backend is in the new backend file, including registration", which is what ssh and most non-prefixed backends do.
>

no worries. i think we are still misunderstanding each other. doesn't matter though! just leave the botobackend as is and i'll do the changes when i find the time :)

>>
>>> I had already added boto3+s3 to the url scheme section and an extended
>>> explanation under "A note on amazon s3" in my latest updates, so I'm not
>> sure
>>> what else you are asking for.  Is the bzr merge request not up to date?
>>
>> in the man page there is a section 'Url Format' that explains the url formats
>> per backend (meaning protocol) currently it looks like
>>
>> -->
>>
>> URL Format
>>
>> Duplicity uses the URL format (as standard as possible) to define data
>> locations. The generic format for a URL is:
>> scheme://[user[:password]@]host[:port]/[/]path
>> It is not ....
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> S3 storage (Amazon)
>>
>> s3://host[:port]/bucket_name[/prefix]
>> s3+http://bucket_name[/prefix]
>> See also A NOTE ON EUROPEAN S3 BUCKETS
>>
>
>
> I think you are looking at an old diff. I updated that when I switched from --s3-use-boto3 to boto3+s3.   Did I need to do more than push my change to my branch to update the merge request? (First project that I've used bzr in...)
>
>
>

ok, i see it now. fine by me then!.. ede/duply.net

-- 
https://code.launchpad.net/~carlalex/duplicity/duplicity/+merge/376206
Your team duplicity-team is subscribed to branch lp:duplicity.