Re: Possible WebDAV bug?
Re: Possible WebDAV bug?
- Subject: Re: Possible WebDAV bug?
- From: Evert|Rooftop <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:51:57 -0500
On 26-Feb-09, at 1:54 PM, Jim Luther wrote:
My solution is actually to intercept these files (along
with .DS_Store, and temporary files from editor such as vim and
smultron) and place them in a separate directory structure. A cron-
job removes files older than 24 hours.
I'll repeat this one more time...
If you want your WebDAV server to act like a file server, you cannot
delete resources you "don't like" for whatever reason. Those
resources were created for a reason and it's not your job to decide
if that reason is valid or not. The .DS_Store files and the
AppleDouble files contain useful information that if deleted will
cause part of Mac OS X or the applications that created those files
to not work.
If you decide your WebDAV server won't or cannot act like a general
purpose file server, then don't try to mount it with the WebDAV file
system. Your WebDAV server won't be the first and won't be the last
that doesn't work like a general purpose file server and so doesn't
work with the WebDAV file system.
Although I definitely understand what you're saying; I feel I should
tell you at least my logic behind this (although I don't expect you to
agree at all.)
Perhaps this goes against the OS/X filesystem design principals, but I
feel I can safely make this assumption because of OS/X's
interoperability with 'foreign systems' (samba share, FAT thumb
drive). As long as I make sure these files don't get thrown away
during a single session I feel I should be able to depend on OS/X to
handle this correctly.
Lastly, although I've read your argument before from other sources
I've seen multiple situations of sysadmins running batch jobs to
remove .DS_Store, ._-files, Thumbs.db, from Samba shares. I've yet to
hear the first case where this has actually caused a problem. This led
me to (possibly falsely) believe that although theoretically certain
applications could depend on this; in practice most applications don't.
The application I'm building is mainly going to be a webdav frontend
for for example CMS's which will mainly be dealing with HTML, CSS,
images, etc.. For these files I'm interested in 2 things: the filename
and the body. If there's a potential for data-loss or other problems,
I will definitely put a big warning in the documentation it's not
recommended to use Finder for this purpose and recommend for example
Cyberduck instead. I'm just wondering if the warning should end with
'but in practice we haven't seen any problems'.
Thanks again very much for pointing me in the right direction;
Evert
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Filesystem-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden