Re: Luasocket FTP problem

[ketmar <ketmar@...>]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:16:58 +0100
Stefan Sandberg <keffo.sandberg@gmail.com> wrote:

> We've already established that 'pasv' is no more correct than 'PASV',
> so it not a bug.
and so ith shouldn't be 'fixed'.

> If 10% of all ftp servers fail to follow specs, you want to prevent 
> luasocket users access to them because of some principle?
nope. LuaSocket dox can mention this fact. but there are no sence in
'fixeing' a perfectly correct implementation.

> If something as trivial as this, with no negative side effects, fixes
> an evidently existing issue, regardless of who created the issue in
> the first place,
> why even argue about it?
'cause 'fixing' non-existant bugs is actually creates TWO bugs istead
of reducing this number to zero. the more we 'fix' such non-broken
things, the more authors tends to ignore RFC. just look at w3c standards
and to the current situation in http/css world.

the *broken server* should be fixed, not the *correct client*. this can
create problems in shrot term but will reduce problematic cases in long
term.

*never ever 'fix' non-broken things. or the really broken things will
remain broken forever.* it's a very simple rule.

> luasocket is a tool, like most other libraries, just solve the issue
> and be done with it, you're engineers!..
and i agree that issue must be solved. by the server author, not by the
author of LuaSocket. or we can just throw out RFCs -- who actually
needs the specs that nobody follows?