remoteStorage

Features app developers really really need


#1

@raucao expressed his disappointment that none of the new features discussed in Unhošť made it into the current draft version of the -02 spec. so let’s reprioritize, then.

if i understand correctly, multiple app developers really really need the following feature:

  • “file sizes”: to have, in the the directory listing format, not only the ETag for each item (as it is now), but also the Content-Type as well as the Content-Length, and to also make this information available via HEAD requests.

other features which were discussed but are iiuc less pressing:

  • byte ranges
  • access control lists
  • allowing the bearer token to be in the query parameter instead of in the Authorization header

please vote on this thread if you think you cannot properly build your apps the way you want without some of these features.


Draft-dejong-remotestorage-02 txt
#2

+1 to everything, weighted in the order listed


#3

how would you want the access control lists to be implemented?


Meeting Wednesday, Nov 20, 4pm CET
#4

I’m not sure, though after thinking about this some more, I think one of the weaknesses of the remote storage spec is the fact that auth and discovery are baked in with the actual storage protocol.

I think we should probably learn from this and when we do get around to implementing ACLs, this could be defined in a separate spec to be a general ACL system, if possible.

What do you think? Any ideas as to how you would implement an ACL system?


Access control lists
#6

I opened a new topic for that discussion: Access control lists


Access control lists