Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Shapira, Yoav wrote: But every time I install tomcat, I go through a set of steps that is always the same: - Unzip the distribution - Remove all its webapps - Strip server.xml down to a minimum I suppose I could just write some scripts to do the above, but a distribution that does it is relatively easy to build. While we had one major distribution really, I didn't want to bring this up as much, because it's adding overhead and another task for the release manager. But now that we already have the main, embedded, and deployer distros for every release, the marginal cost of a minimal distro is significantly lower. I think the manager webapp should be left in (it's small, and is needed for deployment compatibility). Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Howdy, >Yes, but soon you're going to pitch a HTTP-server-in-100k, complete with >its own proprietary API ;) >The embedded distribution is IMO good for a minimal distribution. ;) Not, I don't want a proprietary anything as in the Jetty world. That's no good for any organization that wants long-term maintenance costs to stay low. But every time I install tomcat, I go through a set of steps that is always the same: - Unzip the distribution - Remove all its webapps - Strip server.xml down to a minimum I suppose I could just write some scripts to do the above, but a distribution that does it is relatively easy to build. While we had one major distribution really, I didn't want to bring this up as much, because it's adding overhead and another task for the release manager. But now that we already have the main, embedded, and deployer distros for every release, the marginal cost of a minimal distro is significantly lower. All that said, I reiterate my original point that I don't have a huge objection to bringing WebDAV back in. It's definitely -0, not a -1. Just another webapp for me to remove as part of my normal tomcat installation. Yoav Shapira This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Remy Maucherat wrote: Yes, but soon you're going to pitch a HTTP-server-in-100k, complete with its own proprietary API ;) The embedded distribution is IMO good for a minimal distribution. I for one wasn't about to :-) Rather I think that the module-catalog approach broadens the exposure of the user-community to these modules (rather than them just getting overlooked since they're "in there somewhere") and allows separate release points -- which is a dual-edged sword... -- Jess Holle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Shapira, Yoav wrote: Howdy, I don't think small market shares or lack of clients is a reason for exclude a server feature. They are separate. If the WebDAV app added some negative impact to the tomcat server, then take it out, but if not, then lets add it back in. Even if WebDAV is useful in the general sense (I tend to agree with Senor Holle that it's not, I don't feel strongly either way), I think it's telling that no one complained when we removed it. Anything we add that's not used is bloat by definition, and more for us to maintain. We didn't remove it. That webapp wasn't serving any useful purpose. Of course, we already do have a WebDAV servlet shipping with tomcat5, and that's the main part. What else did you (Mark T.) think of adding to the distribution? And I'm glad it's being maintained again. This gets me thinking again of the idea of a minimal build: no webdav, no CGI, no examples, no docs, no balancer, minimal server.xml as the default, etc, so as to minimize download size and cater to those users who know what they're doing and just want to drop their webapp into tomcat. Yes, but soon you're going to pitch a HTTP-server-in-100k, complete with its own proprietary API ;) The embedded distribution is IMO good for a minimal distribution. Rémy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Shapira, Yoav wrote: Howdy, I don't think small market shares or lack of clients is a reason for exclude a server feature. They are separate. If the WebDAV app added some negative impact to the tomcat server, then take it out, but if not, then lets add it back in. Even if WebDAV is useful in the general sense (I tend to agree with Senor Holle that it's not, I don't feel strongly either way), I think it's telling that no one complained when we removed it. Anything we add that's not used is bloat by definition, and more for us to maintain. Of course, we already do have a WebDAV servlet shipping with tomcat5, and that's the main part. What else did you (Mark T.) think of adding to the distribution? This gets me thinking again of the idea of a minimal build: no webdav, no CGI, no examples, no docs, no balancer, minimal server.xml as the default, etc, so as to minimize download size and cater to those users who know what they're doing and just want to drop their webapp into tomcat. Jakarta could have a minimal Tomcat binary + a set of standard Jakarta add-on web-apps. Add a "standard web app catalog viewer" to Tomcat and you're set. Right? [At that point Tomcat would be kind of like what NetBeans tries to be in this regard, which is pretty nice -- all other aspects of NetBeans aside.] -- Jess Holle
RE: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Howdy, >I don't think small market shares or lack of clients is a reason for >exclude >a server feature. They are separate. If the WebDAV app added some negative >impact to the tomcat server, then take it out, but if not, then lets add it >back in. Even if WebDAV is useful in the general sense (I tend to agree with Senor Holle that it's not, I don't feel strongly either way), I think it's telling that no one complained when we removed it. Anything we add that's not used is bloat by definition, and more for us to maintain. Of course, we already do have a WebDAV servlet shipping with tomcat5, and that's the main part. What else did you (Mark T.) think of adding to the distribution? This gets me thinking again of the idea of a minimal build: no webdav, no CGI, no examples, no docs, no balancer, minimal server.xml as the default, etc, so as to minimize download size and cater to those users who know what they're doing and just want to drop their webapp into tomcat. Yoav Shapira This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
I don't think small market shares or lack of clients is a reason for exclude a server feature. They are separate. If the WebDAV app added some negative impact to the tomcat server, then take it out, but if not, then lets add it back in. Filip - Original Message - From: "Julian Reschke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5 Jess Holle wrote: > How does the user use the filesystem driver? net use ... > The end-user certainly cannot achieve anything meaningful via web > folders. I did a lot of testing in this regard. Well, I disagree. Lots of my customers use webfolders heavily. > Now if there is a better level of usability/functionality achievable > with Windows without significant additional client side programming, I'd > love to hear more about it -- i.e. I'd love to discover I'm simply > ignorant here and find a silver bullet for this issue! Of course there isn't any silver bullet. But all clients I've seen are still better than non-programmatic access or FTP. > OpenOffice is very small in terms of market share, though I certainly > wish it all the best! Adobe is also fairly small in terms of market share. Oh well. Microsoft Office is not small in market share, and works very well with WebDAV. > What is really necessary is an across-the-board file-system and desktop > GUI level integration such that all applications on the OS get some > level of functionality with WebDAV (including open and save as a > minimum!) and those that are "DAV-aware" may get more. App-by-app DAV > awareness is *much* less interesting as it is guaranteed to be > inconsistent between apps and as a server-vendor one can't depend on it > being present in the client apps. I've not seen any means to achieve > this across-the-board functionality with Windows (and again, *please* > prove me ignorant here). Well, use one of the many filesystem drivers (Xythos, Windows XP, ...). Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Jess Holle wrote: How does the user use the filesystem driver? net use ... The end-user certainly cannot achieve anything meaningful via web folders. I did a lot of testing in this regard. Well, I disagree. Lots of my customers use webfolders heavily. Now if there is a better level of usability/functionality achievable with Windows without significant additional client side programming, I'd love to hear more about it -- i.e. I'd love to discover I'm simply ignorant here and find a silver bullet for this issue! Of course there isn't any silver bullet. But all clients I've seen are still better than non-programmatic access or FTP. OpenOffice is very small in terms of market share, though I certainly wish it all the best! Adobe is also fairly small in terms of market share. Oh well. Microsoft Office is not small in market share, and works very well with WebDAV. What is really necessary is an across-the-board file-system and desktop GUI level integration such that all applications on the OS get some level of functionality with WebDAV (including open and save as a minimum!) and those that are "DAV-aware" may get more. App-by-app DAV awareness is *much* less interesting as it is guaranteed to be inconsistent between apps and as a server-vendor one can't depend on it being present in the client apps. I've not seen any means to achieve this across-the-board functionality with Windows (and again, *please* prove me ignorant here). Well, use one of the many filesystem drivers (Xythos, Windows XP, ...). Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Julian Reschke wrote: Jess Holle wrote: WebDAV seems to be largely an empty promise due to the lack of reasonable, compatible clients. >>90% of all clients are Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Windows' Web Folders support WebDAV to a *small* degree. Yet the way this is integrated into the OS is at such a level that >99% of all Windows apps are incompatible in full or part with Web Folders (e.g. you can't directly save to or open from web folders from these apps). Even Microsoft Office is only compatible with web folders in the most common menu items (e.g. open/save) whereas various other file dialogs for importing, object inclusion, etc, are not compatible with web folders. The kicker for app developers: the OS does not give you a normal file path (or File object in Java) for objects in web folders -- thus requiring special action to be compatible. I've tried products which claim to give the level of integration that Microsoft failed to achieve. Unfortunately, they proved unstable and unreliable. Now various UNIX flavors may well provide file system mappings to WebDAV (and the OS X one sounds nice), but unfortunately for those who produce servers that would like to be able to just expose themselves to clients via WebDAV this is essentially useless for >>90% of the market. I absolutely disagree. Windows comes with two clients (an explorer extension and a filesystem driver), How does the user use the filesystem driver? The end-user certainly cannot achieve anything meaningful via web folders. I did a lot of testing in this regard. Now if there is a better level of usability/functionality achievable with Windows without significant additional client side programming, I'd love to hear more about it -- i.e. I'd love to discover I'm simply ignorant here and find a silver bullet for this issue! MacOSX comes with a drriver, and there's also a Linux FS. Agreed on these counts, but these are <<10% of the market. Many major applications (for instance Adobe or OpenOffice) support it as well. WebDAV is robust and interoperability is actually quite good. OpenOffice is very small in terms of market share, though I certainly wish it all the best! Adobe is also fairly small in terms of market share. What is really necessary is an across-the-board file-system and desktop GUI level integration such that all applications on the OS get some level of functionality with WebDAV (including open and save as a minimum!) and those that are "DAV-aware" may get more. App-by-app DAV awareness is *much* less interesting as it is guaranteed to be inconsistent between apps and as a server-vendor one can't depend on it being present in the client apps. I've not seen any means to achieve this across-the-board functionality with Windows (and again, *please* prove me ignorant here). -- Jess Holle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
Jess Holle wrote: WebDAV seems to be largely an empty promise due to the lack of reasonable, compatible clients. >>90% of all clients are Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Windows' Web Folders support WebDAV to a *small* degree. Yet the way this is integrated into the OS is at such a level that >99% of all Windows apps are incompatible in full or part with Web Folders (e.g. you can't directly save to or open from web folders from these apps). Even Microsoft Office is only compatible with web folders in the most common menu items (e.g. open/save) whereas various other file dialogs for importing, object inclusion, etc, are not compatible with web folders. The kicker for app developers: the OS does not give you a normal file path (or File object in Java) for objects in web folders -- thus requiring special action to be compatible. I've tried products which claim to give the level of integration that Microsoft failed to achieve. Unfortunately, they proved unstable and unreliable. Now various UNIX flavors may well provide file system mappings to WebDAV (and the OS X one sounds nice), but unfortunately for those who produce servers that would like to be able to just expose themselves to clients via WebDAV this is essentially useless for >>90% of the market. I absolutely disagree. Windows comes with two clients (an explorer extension and a filesystem driver), MacOSX comes with a drriver, and there's also a Linux FS. Many major applications (for instance Adobe or OpenOffice) support it as well. WebDAV is robust and interoperability is actually quite good. Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT] Re: WebDAV and TC5
George MATKOVITS wrote: Please, PLEASE add it! There is no demand because MOST users do not know any compatible clients! Thank you - George WebDAV seems to be largely an empty promise due to the lack of reasonable, compatible clients. >>90% of all clients are Microsoft Windows. Microsoft Windows' Web Folders support WebDAV to a *small* degree. Yet the way this is integrated into the OS is at such a level that >99% of all Windows apps are incompatible in full or part with Web Folders (e.g. you can't directly save to or open from web folders from these apps). Even Microsoft Office is only compatible with web folders in the most common menu items (e.g. open/save) whereas various other file dialogs for importing, object inclusion, etc, are not compatible with web folders. The kicker for app developers: the OS does not give you a normal file path (or File object in Java) for objects in web folders -- thus requiring special action to be compatible. I've tried products which claim to give the level of integration that Microsoft failed to achieve. Unfortunately, they proved unstable and unreliable. Now various UNIX flavors may well provide file system mappings to WebDAV (and the OS X one sounds nice), but unfortunately for those who produce servers that would like to be able to just expose themselves to clients via WebDAV this is essentially useless for >>90% of the market. -- Jess Holle - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
