On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Robert Stepanek wrote:
So, IMHO it boils down to the question what the scope of the webdav
package should be and then be specific about that in the godoc to
manage expectations.
My overall philosophy is to be scoped to WebDAV as used in practice
rather than as specified in RFCs, plus the litmus test if it's not too
hard. I imagine in practice to mean typical desktop OS's built-in
clients (e.g. Windows Explorer, Mac OS Finder), and possibly CalDAV.

Interpreting that to mean RFC 4918 only seems fine to me for now,
especially if it doesn't rule out adding features later. I'm open to
re-introducing a webdav.PropSystem abstraction in the future, or
perhaps a different mechanism for registering live properties with a
webdav.Handler, but only if it seems needed by real world clients. I
don't see the need for e.g. implementing a
golang.org/x/net/webdav/versioning package yet, and I don't think that
the DeadPropsHandler design constrains us from doing that.

I haven't given CalDAV a heck of a lot of thought, but my instinct is
that if CalDAV already needs their own 'file' system, then there's
already a natural place to manage whatever properties they need to.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 10 of 13 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupgolang-dev @
postedMay 6, '15 at 2:02p
activeMay 20, '15 at 7:24a

2 users in discussion

Robert Stepanek: 7 posts Nigel Tao: 6 posts



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase