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

[Ajay Garg]

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
> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20120329/83163eff/attachment-0001.html>