Hi all. Just wondering, if telepathy-gabble is being used to manage Jabber accounts, could this "Jabber as gateway for HTTPS-based WebDAV" thing be accomplished through stream-tubes (http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/spec/Channel_Type_Stream_Tube.html), instead of an explicit proxy?
Thanks and Regards, Ajay On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Ajay Garg <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks (a ton - a ton times !! ) Waqas. > > I really appreciate your efforts in trying to get the exact use-case. > Please find my comments inline. > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Waqas Hussain <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Ajay Garg <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thanks a ton Waqas. >> > >> > This is probably what I was looking for. >> > >> > Just some minor queries :: >> > >> > a) >> > Once the proxies are setup (i.e. there is a link (Alice's WebDAV hosted >> > in >> > "httpd") <==> (Tom's server) <==> (Bob's browser), then the >> > user-experience >> > will be the same as though Alice and Bob are on the same network, right? >> > >> > >> >> Yep, in the end it's just an HTTP proxy. The fact that there's a >> tunnel and XMPP is invisible to the WebDAV user. >> >> > b) >> > What is your general opinion on this approach? Would the amount and >> > complexity of the added code (proxy-setup) be worthwhile, than looking >> > for a >> > possible alternative like >> > "upload-files-to-central-server-and-then-download-from-there"? >> > >> > >> >> Depends on what you are actually trying to build. Do you need realtime >> sync like Dropbox? > > > No. Just the ability for the client to access and download server's files, > according to client's comfort. > > > > > >> >> Is WebDAV a requirement? > > > Hmm.. Not really. But this seems to be the best solution possible over FTP, > SFTP, FTPS. > > > > > >> >> Can Bob run a custom >> client? > > > He could. But my thinking is (I may be wrong though, please correct me if I > am wrong) that a browser has everything to handle this particular scenario. > So, there is no need to re-invent the wheel. > > > > > > >> >> Is the server having a copy of the files a good thing? > > > Yes, because we would be a working in a N-to-N environement, where any of > the N users are acting as servers, as well as clients. So each server puts > whatever she wants to share in her local share, > > > > > >> >> >> WebDAV isn't too great at realtime sync AFAIK. > > > Realtime sync is not required. > > > > > >> >> And if Bob can run a >> custom client, an end-to-end Jingle session between Bob and Alice >> would be much better than tunneling through Tom's server, since that >> saves bandwidth for the server, allows direct peer to peer transfers, >> etc. > > > I did have a look into Jingle, but that is a server-initiated process, > right? > That would defeat the purpose of working according to client's comfort. > > > > > > > >> >> If the server would want to keep a copy of everything anyway >> (like it does in Dropbox's case), then >> "upload-files-to-central-server-and-then-download-from-there" would be >> better. > > > Well, as I said we are working in a N-to-N environment. So, a central server > would be too much public (not to forget heavily loaded) with the shares of > all N users. Moreover, that would mean twice the storage space (as far as > the total eco-system is concerned). > > > I would love to get more feedback from you in due course of time. > > > Thanks, Thanks, Thanks. > > > Regards, > Ajay > > >> >> > Anyways, thanks a ton for the confidence :) >> > >> > >> > Thanks and Regards, >> > Ajay >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> JDev mailing list >> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev >> Unsubscribe: [email protected] >> _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
