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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Ajay Garg <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
