From: Conrad I. <con...@go...> - 2008-12-16 12:33:47
|
Dear All, I recently refactored some of the code in yaws_dav.erl so that it conforms more closely to RFC 4918 on PROPFIND requests. It also does some internal tidying up like splitting the XML parsing/writing away from the filesystem actions. Are people still interested in support WebDAV - in which case what should I do with this patch? It will now work as a basic (non-LOCKing) server for cadaver and davfs clients, though I haven't yet investigated getting the Windows Web Folders client going (I think it would need a lot of hackery scanning the lighttpd mod_dav code). Yours Conrad |
From: Thomas L. <tho...@ya...> - 2008-12-16 14:26:16
|
--- On Tue, 12/16/08, Conrad Irwin <con...@go...> wrote: > I recently refactored some of the code in yaws_dav.erl so > that it > conforms more closely to RFC 4918 on PROPFIND requests. It > also does > some internal tidying up like splitting the XML > parsing/writing away > from the filesystem actions. Are people still interested in > support > WebDAV - in which case what should I do with this patch? Nice. I wouldn't mind better DAV support at all. Best, Thomas |
From: Claes W. <kl...@ta...> - 2008-12-16 19:07:38
|
Thomas Lindgren wrote: > > > --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Conrad Irwin <con...@go...> wrote: >> I recently refactored some of the code in yaws_dav.erl so >> that it >> conforms more closely to RFC 4918 on PROPFIND requests. It >> also does >> some internal tidying up like splitting the XML >> parsing/writing away >> from the filesystem actions. Are people still interested in >> support >> WebDAV - in which case what should I do with this patch? The webdav support in yaws is - well - lagging. I'm just happy to see someone take an interest in it. If you have a patch, that works well for you I'll be happy to apply it. So, please just post it. /klacke |
From: Conrad I. <con...@go...> - 2008-12-16 22:41:35
Attachments:
yaws_dav.erl
|
2008/12/16 Claes Wikstrom <kl...@ta...>: > Thomas Lindgren wrote: >> >> >> --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Conrad Irwin <con...@go...> wrote: >>> I recently refactored some of the code in yaws_dav.erl so >>> that it >>> conforms more closely to RFC 4918 on PROPFIND requests. It >>> also does >>> some internal tidying up like splitting the XML >>> parsing/writing away >>> from the filesystem actions. Are people still interested in >>> support >>> WebDAV - in which case what should I do with this patch? > > > The webdav support in yaws is - well - lagging. I'm just happy to > see someone take an interest in it. If you have a patch, that works well for you > I'll be happy to apply it. > > So, please just post it. > > /klacke > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. > The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help > pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at > http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Erlyaws-list mailing list > Erl...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/erlyaws-list > I've attached it, can't promise that I'll do much more with it - having played with that for a while I've come to the realisation that the reason webdav isn't that well supported is because the protocol itself is really very badly designed (know any other situation where you have to use a different date standard for creation time/last modified :s). I wouldn't trust that code in production, there are many serious bugs still, but I think it's a slight stumble forwards from what is there now. Conrad |
From: Claes W. <kl...@ta...> - 2008-12-17 09:16:55
|
Conrad Irwin wrote: > Dear All, > > I recently refactored some of the code in yaws_dav.erl so that it > conforms more closely to RFC 4918 on PROPFIND requests. I can't really see how this code can work. The previous version of PUT, did a series of yaws:cli_recv() calls and then storing the chunks as they arrive whereas your code does away with that and just writes ARG#arg.clidata to the file. There are no guarantees that clidata contains all the data the client sent, just the first chunk. Why did you throw away that code? /klacke |