Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote on 17-3-2004 15:26:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Ugo Cei wrote:
Unico Hommes wrote:
I was thinking specifically regarding the choice between Cocoon and Slide as a WebDAV server, but I think Slide is the better choice over mod_dav/catacomb as well. Simply because it supports more WebDAV (DACL, Binding) in a more flexible way. It has an interception mechanism which I currently use to publish cache invalidation events to a JMS topic with. It has a pluggable storage system that allows you to plugin a custom store. There is a lively community actively implementing the latest WebDAV specifications.
Thank you. I had fought with the installation of Slide 2.0beta1 and, apart from the problem with MacOSX, the installation docs didn't seem to be either clear or updated, so I decided to try mod_dav, which proved to be a more pleasant experience, since it worked right out of the box (these days I tend to disregard products that don't work at the first try). But after hearing this, I'll give Slide another try.
As another data point, I just went through the process of evaluating slide. The installation went fine but I was not able to get it to interoperate with any client other than the slide command line client. In particular, I simply wasn't able to get Windows XP to work with slide which, unfortunately, was a must for me.
There are known issues on with windows webfolders but this is not due to Slide.
I simply couldn't get the cocoon slide block to work.
Could you give more details as to what went wrong? Did the samples not work?
I finally implemented a solution with apache webdav. It had its own interoperability problems but I was able to work through them.
-- Unico
