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

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

lol, very good pic. So the responsibility of this remoteStorage draft is to be a useful and specific 15th. 


--------------
Fei Song
>I think we should not (try to) pick one protocol - https://xkcd.com/927/
>
>I think sync *clients* should be "protocol polyglots" in the same way as
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients#Protocol_support
>
>On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Fran?ois Kooman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 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...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Fran?ois
>>
>