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

Hi

2015-12-02 5:14 GMT+08:00 Hugo González Labrador <ietf@hugo.labkode.com>:

> Hi,
>
> from my point of view the remoteStorage project addresses a subset of
> the use cases of the  WebDAV specification.
>
> The main difference I can observe is that the specification is built on
> REST instead of XML-based communication.


> I personally like much more REST than WebDAV because it is more
> developer friendly and it is faster to develop.
>  Maybe the remoteStorage API becomes the next WebDAV :)
>
> However, the remoteStorage API does not provide a way of synchronising
> data, this task is delegated to the developers.
> Is there a plan to provide such feature based on the outcome of this
> draft?
>
I'm a little bit confused why you say the remoteStorage does not provide
that. Is that because remoteStorage does not perform like a typical sync
services (e.g. dropbox...) or you are saying something else?

>
> BTW, I want to introduce ClawIO (http://clawio.github.io), a research
> project to benchmark different synchronisation protocols against
> different data backends with special attention to provide a common sync
> API.
>
> A common API for different sync protocols is being created based on the
> architecture specified in this draft (control and data servers) and the
>
I cannot find a distributed architecture in this draft. It seems that they
handle metadata and content data together, just like a normal web service.

Regards,
Linhui

> one from the CERN EOS project (management, disk and queue servers).
>
> The Phase I has implemented the ownCloud Sync Protocol and Phase II will
> implement the SeaFile Sync Protocol.
> The choice of these protocols among others is because they are really
> opposed to each other in terms of syncing (delta vs non-delta,
> state-based vs log/event/git-based sync …), so finding a common approach
> is more challenging.
>
> Providing a base specification/architecture to measure the feasibility
> of this draft is one of the objectives of the project.
>
> I believe that the work being done here and in ClawIO are supplementary
> to each other and I think mutual collaboration could be beneficial for
> both sides.
>
> Also, if there is interest, the remoteStorage API can be added to
> ClawIO.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Hugo Gonzalez Labrador
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015, at 09:00 PM, storagesync-request@ietf.org wrote:
> > Send Storagesync mailing list submissions to
> >       storagesync@ietf.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >       storagesync-request@ietf.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >       storagesync-owner@ietf.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Storagesync digest..."
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage    Internet-Draft
> >       available (Michiel de Jong)
> >    2. Re: New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-Draft
> >       available (Gihan Dias)
> >    3. Re: New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-Draft
> >       available (Fei Song)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Storagesync mailing list
> > Storagesync@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
> > Email had 3 attachments:
> > + [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage
> > Internet-Draft available
> >   2k (message/rfc822)
> > + Re: [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage
> > Internet-Draft available
> >   1k (message/rfc822)
> > + Re: [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage
> > Internet-Draft available
> >   2k (message/rfc822)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Storagesync mailing list
> Storagesync@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
>