jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert r. Sanders" <robert.sand...@ipov.net>
Subject Re: Alfresco + Jackrabbit
Date Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:14:25 GMT
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Robert r. Sanders schrieb:
>>>> Having tried mapping a WeDAV
>>>> location as a network drive I can say that it really doesn't work in a
>>>> usable fashion.
>>> Really? So far I experienced a generally suboptimal perfomance
>>> but it works just as well as CIFS for me, both on MacOSX and Windows.
>>> What issues did you encounter?
>> We tried Win2k client machines connecting to a Subversion server set 
>> to auto-version.  Opening a "web folder" worked ok; but trying to map 
>> that to a drive letter seemed to result in all sorts of issues, one 
>> of which I believe was an infinite loop in the login prompt.  Its 
>> been over a year, so the details have gotten kind of fuzzy.  Anyway, 
>> we were trying to use non-WebDAV aware programs (e.g. Flash, Wave 
>> file editors, etc...) and this also seemed to often result in 
>> zero-byte files being stored on the server.  Maybe a different 
>> combination on the server-side would have fixed the issue, I can't say.
> Well. If programs act suboptimal when presented with a JCR server 
> mapped to a drive letter through WebDAV, why do you think they'll work 
> any better with a JCR server mapped to a drive letter through CIFS? 
> It's only a different transport, but I don't think the main issues (*) 
> will go away.
> Best regards, Julian
> (*) such as: lots of temp files, no use of locking, creating new files 
> and moving them over instead of overwriting existing ones, causing 
> loss of metadata
First off as I said the server was actually not running a JCR 
implementation - it was running subversion (OS X was reported to work 
pretty well by one user who tried it with his notebook).  Secondly, my 
goal would be to "tune" the JCR server configuration to better handle 
the specific use cases (although this is of course speculative, but I 
think at least somewhat possible). Third, I suspect the big issue is 
that, as many people have found, the MS implementation of  WebDAV  
"drives' is pretty idiosyncratic, so although I have to admit I have not 
had a chance to test it, I would suspect something which exposed a CIFS 
interface would at least be easier to setup if nothing else.  Of course 
this is mostly speculative, but it meshes with my experience.

View raw message