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

+1


--------------
Fei Song
>
>
>On Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 07:18 PM, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:28:48AM +0100, Hugo González Labrador wrote:
>> > Of course, the remoteStorage is targeted to browsers, so syncing does
>> > not make too much sense in this case. With the rise of Linux container
>> > micro-service based architectures, the deployment of ?such highly
>> > complex systems should become easier and faster.
>> 
>> It is not exclusively targeted at browsers, although the browser's
>> Origin-based
>> security model is required for sane client identification. You can
>> totally
>> access remoteStorage accounts using desktop apps, a proof-of-concept
>> exists at
>> https://github.com/untitaker/vdirsyncer.
>> 
>
>That's great to hear. If this is achievable maybe will be good to
>clarify this aspect in the spec.
>
>>From the abstract
>
>    This draft describes a protocol by which client-side applications,
>    running inside a web browser, can communicate with a data storage
>    server that is hosted on a different domain name. This way, the
>    provider of a web application need not also play the role of data
>    storage provider. The protocol supports storing, retrieving, and
>    removing individual documents, as well as listing the contents of an
>    individual folder, and access control is based on bearer tokens.
>
>
>it is difficult to infer that the spec is also targeted to non-web apps
>as there are no mentions to server-side or desktop apps.
>
>As far as I know the OAuth authentication flow works in client-side web
>applications, have you managed to use such mechanism in your non-web
>project ? That would be a really interesting achievement. Maybe this is
>the cause why remoteStorage does not mention non-web apps in their
>abstract.
>
>
>Summoning Michiel to clarify this aspect.
>
>> Synchronisation is a completely unrelated topic. I don't see how it's
>> related
>> to whether the protocol is targeted at browser applications, in either
>> case
>> offline sync has to work. And it does.
>> 
>> I don't understand what you mean with "linux container micro-service
>> based
>> architectures", or how it is related to this discussion.
>> 
>
>That was said to give an example of how using Docker Containers can help
>to manage non-monolithic applications. Of course, that is not directly
>related to sync.
>
>> -- Markus
>> 
>> > 
>> > Best,
>> > 
>> > Hugo
>> > 
>> > > Regards, Linhui
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>> 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
>> > >>
>> 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Storagesync mailing list
>> > Storagesync@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Storagesync mailing list
>Storagesync@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync