archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: Remove support for webdav?
Date Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:32:48 GMT
I agree with Deng.

I thought WebDAV was a reasonable choice for the central web interface  
since it forced it to be resource-based and gave a bit of extra  
functionality. I know that we still had it a little tangled up though.

I've no objection to abstracting it a layer away, but if it's at all  
hard to add Jackrabbit on top of what remains (plugin? :) then I'd  
think something has gone horribly wrong. We've (ok, you've!) already  
done most of the hard work of figuring out some of the client and  
locking issues - if we don't have a direct need for that then we can  
document that it is only partially supported and let people that want  
to fix that do so themselves, right?


On 13/02/2009, at 1:46 PM, Maria Odea Ching wrote:

> Hi James,
> I'm still undecided whether to completely remove webdav support.  
> From our
> conversation in IRC the other day, I gleaned that we could move on  
> to the
> new API and still support webdav right? If that would be the case,  
> how much
> work or change would need to be made in the new API? And can we re- 
> use some
> of the existing code in the webdav module?
> Thanks,
> Deng
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:36 AM, James William Dumay < 
> >wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>> I've been working on a newer repository API that is not based on a
>> webdav servlet but a simple HTTP servlet that supports PUT (and some
>> backward compatibility for Webdav's MKCOL method).
>> The new API has been made simple because of the limited amount of  
>> methods that need to be implemented.
>> So you may be asking "Show me the code" unfortunately I'm waiting  
>> for an
>> IP waiver at Atlassian to be processed so I can get the project off  
>> of
>> and into the Archiva sandbox.
>> I can think of a few advantages of no longer supporting webdav:
>> * We no longer have to support 4 or so different implementations of
>> Microsoft webdav clients
>> * Our tenuous support for Webdav Level 3 locking can simply go away.
>> * The ugly issues surrounding the DavResourceFactory and the  
>> repository
>> group feature will go away (currently we have two impls of a  
>> DavResource
>> instead of the one)
>> One disadvantage I can see is that our webdav support is a
>> differentiator and that we already have an existing users using the
>> webdav feature.
>> Thoughts?
>> James
> -- 
> Maria Odea Ching
> Software Engineer | Exist Global | 687-4091 | Skype:  
> maria.odea.ching |
> | Innovation Delivered

Brett Porter

View raw message