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

[Michiel de Jong <[e-mail]>]

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, François 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,
> François
>