I would strongly argue against going quite *that* far. Restlet is already suffering from some extension proliferation, as evidenced by the list receiving a growing number of support inquiries from people trying to understand which of the many extension JARs they must include (and which they must exclude) to make something work the way they expect. It would be very extreme to have potentially dozens of new Restlet extensions, each of which effectively supplies only a few lines of code for WebDAV interoperability with a specific given client, each one packaged to its own JAR and requiring service discovery. I don't think basic web folder integration should be put in an extension at all, because it doesn't depend on anything external, it's trivial in size, and there's no reason to make Restlet users jump extra hurdles if they want to use it. But if the consensus is that it should go in an extension, I'm fine with that. Just not a dozen extensions, please.
- R On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:27 AM, Jean-Yves Cronier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For compatibility problems, it would be better to not develop specificities > in the "standard WebDAV" extension, but rather in other extensions. > > For example : > - com.restlet.ext.webdav.mswebfolder > - com.restlet.ext.webdav.webdrive > - etc. >
