[jdev] (Newbie question) Can Jabber act as a gateway for HTTPS-based WebDAV?

[Ajay Garg]

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 <ajaygargnsit at gmail.com> 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 <waqas20 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Ajay Garg <ajaygargnsit at gmail.com> 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: JDev-unsubscribe at jabber.org
>> _______________________________________________
>
>