Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by binbasti 3927 days ago
(Co-founder of 5apps and RS core contributor here.)

> remoteStorage has as far as I know only one production instance running at 5apps

That's not true. 5apps is running the only public service for end users at the moment, but there are certainly more production instances running.

> The benefits of using the RS protocol are mostly due to the CORS headers (which could be implemented easily for WebDAV) and the use of OAuth/Bearer, for which a PR exists for SabreDAV [3].

As both of these would be optional additions to WebDAV servers, all of WebDAV's benefits parish with most servers not supporting these new extensions. That's the very critique in the article as far as I understand. WebDAV alone is not good enough, and optional additions lead to a world of incompatibility and pain.

> One thing missing from WebDAV is the (implicit) mapping of OAuth scopes to ACLs, which should not be too difficult to implement

And another addition.

> I'd prefer something like OAuth authorization server discovery

And another one. Counting 4 now. :)

> but it just doesn't bring (in my opinion) many benefits and loses interop with existing WebDAV clients for no good reason

You just mentioned that to get to feature parity with remoteStorage, a WebDAV server needs 4 optional additions, for only one of which an unmerged PR to a single server implementation exists. Maybe I miss something, but it doesn't sound like interop is WebDAV's benefit in this scenario.

1 comments

Ah, my point was, actually, to base the remoteStorage spec on WebDAV instead of a new JSON-based protocol as it currently exists. remoteStorage could define a WebDAV 'profile' for what needs to be supported by the server...
Yes, and then you have another optional version of WebDAV, adding to the existing mess, while you don't actually have the benefit of interop that you say would be the reason for using WebDAV in the first place.

The way I read it, that's basically the point of the article.