From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: peter huang Message-ID: References: <9ac56b3938baa3accb55d587a63f662a@9srv.net>, <00e601c28456$8810ee20$6501a8c0@KIKE> Subject: Re: [9fans] HTTP tunnelling of 9P -- taboo? Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:47:47 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 15bab6aa-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 I have to say something about webdav. For people do not have plan9 world, it is one of the better extensions under http. It meets the need for updating the web site in a hetergenous enviornment. As any authoring tools, versioning is also important, Clearcase and subversion (cvs replacement) will use webdav as the software configuration management (SCM) repository. Plan9 SCM model is simple and elegant but not practical for "current" SCM need (multiple test and development release trains, concurrent multiple branching and merging ). Furthermore, I don't consider http such a bad protocol but it is all the layers on top of it making it worse and worse. It was a simple protocol, easy to understand and implement and serve it's intend design purpose (I was one of the earlier users way before Mosaic's day). I would consider ftp is one of the worse protocols in today's internet world (no security). However, security comes with a cost, I don't see a sshfs in plan9 or any other systems. Bear in mind, until the 4th edition, the security layer in 9p isn't that clean either. Finally, there are quite a few off-line tools updating the web site using webdav protocol and used no "browser", so it is not a browser only protocol. If there is a gateway to allow 9p to talk to webdav server, then something useful may come of it. However, no tunneling. just my $0.2 -peter (putting on my flame armor now ;-)) Futhermore, the version "matt" wrote in message news:00e601c28456$8810ee20$6501a8c0@KIKE... > > > is the fact that WebDAV is a set of http "extentions" really a > > selling point for most of its users? i doubt it. > > lack of unified document management tools for web authoring is the key to > it's appeal > > "it works in a browser" is certainly a selling point, the many windowed > desktop is too noisy, user context switches seem less expensive inside the > same application - witness ftp in a browser etc.etc. For years I've bemoaned > the death of the application and the rich controls available to application > programmers. The people at my latest job were delighted when I switched them > from browser based