Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

support WebDAV Mount (RFC4709) #48

Closed
jelmer opened this issue Mar 26, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed

support WebDAV Mount (RFC4709) #48

jelmer opened this issue Mar 26, 2017 · 7 comments
Labels

Comments

@jelmer
Copy link
Owner

jelmer commented Mar 26, 2017

See http://www.rfc-base.org/rfc-4709.html

@jelmer jelmer added the RFC label Mar 26, 2017
@jelmer
Copy link
Owner Author

jelmer commented May 1, 2017

Is there actually any use in implementing this? As far as I can tell, there is only one implementation of it - also server side. This is in SabreDAV: http://sabre.io/dav/davmount/

@jelmer
Copy link
Owner Author

jelmer commented May 1, 2017

The only client that implements this is the proprietary Xythos Drive (mentioned in the RFC); https://www.xythosondemand.com/xod/support/xythos_drive.html

jelmer added a commit that referenced this issue May 1, 2017
@jelmer
Copy link
Owner Author

jelmer commented May 1, 2017

I have an implementation of this, but no way to test it. For the moment, I'm going to hold off on merging this until somebody can convince me why this is a good idea.

jelmer added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 2, 2017
@minfrin
Copy link

minfrin commented Mar 3, 2018

You need to be convinced that following an RFC is a good idea...?

@jelmer
Copy link
Owner Author

jelmer commented Mar 3, 2018

s/following/implementing/

Implementing this RFC is not a requirement for any of the RFCs that Xandikos actually cares about. I also don't see any clients that actually support it.

@minfrin
Copy link

minfrin commented Mar 3, 2018

Built it, and they will come.

@jelmer
Copy link
Owner Author

jelmer commented Mar 3, 2018

Sure, I'd do that, if I thought this RFC was a good idea and needed wider adoption. I'm not convinced, and the fact that there are no other implementations doesn't help.

I'm open to changing my mind, but until I do there's other functionality I'd rather focus on.

@jelmer jelmer closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Oct 25, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants