Re: [Storagesync] Storagesync Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1

["Fei Song" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fran?ois,


--------------
Fei Song
>On 12/03/2015 10:06 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> If we really want to discuss the Pros and Cons of WebDAV, can we
>> mark these three reasons as disadvantages of WebDAV? any support for
>> that?
>
>Personally, I do not think that is fair.
>
>> 1) it's a lot of work to implement this without using an existing
>> WebDAV library 
>
>I do not see a problem in reusing an existing WebDAV library. This has
>the added benefit that you get a lot of functionality 'for free' and
>that existing test suites are available for testing compatibility. This
>is purely a practical argument!
>
>> 2) in practice, a lot of WebDAV servers get it wrong,
>> or don't implement all of WebDAV. It's very annoying for client
>> implementers to have to deal with servers that e.g. chose not to
>> implement LOCK and UNLOCK. 
>
>The point is not to have a fully compliant (whatever that is exactly)
>WebDAV server. Either this ML (or remoteStorage specification) could
>determine a subset of WebDAV that would be required to be implemented.
>E.g. we exhaustively list the verbs that need to be implemented and
>their expected behavior. If we keep this a limited as possible and stay
>away from experimental features we have a high probability that most
>libraries will get it right! If we stay away from locking and ACLs the
>library situation looks a lot brighter :)
>
>> 3) we don't really need all these advanced
>> features on top of standard HTTP, just supporting GET/PUT/DELETE for
>> resources, and adding a simple folder description format, is enough
>> for most applications.
>
>Exactly!
>
>> For the target of our ISS group, whether the WebDAV can be reused is 
>> critical.
>
>Well, my point is that there is little reason to reinvent the wheel if
>the only benefit is to use JSON instead of XML for folder listings. The
>amount of experience and available tooling for WebDAV is already huge!
>It would be a waste to throw this away just for liking JSON better.
>
>But maybe there are other reasons using (a limited set of) WebDAV is
>impossible or unwanted...

For your last comment, I wonder do we already have a limited version of WebDAV? 


>
>Cheers,
>Fran?ois
>
>_______________________________________________
>Storagesync mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync