Infoworld: WebDAV Comes of Age

=?iso-8859-1?B?SvZzaA==?= josh@bluescreen.org
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:09:17 -0400


----- Original Message -----
From: "Meltsner, Kenneth" <Kenneth.Meltsner@ca.com>
To: <jm@jmason.org>; "Jösh" <josh@bluescreen.org>
Cc: "Mike Dierken" <mike@DataChannel.com>; <FoRK@xent.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:20 PM
Subject: RE: Infoworld: WebDAV Comes of Age


> Simple political explanation: the Office team and the IE team wanted
WebDAV, the core Windows 2K team didn't.
>
Make that the overly simplified and cynical explanation.. :)

IMHO, The win2k team wasnt opposed to DAV, they just werent willing to sign
up to
build a new redirector for win2k.   That isnt saying anything abouit DAV,
they really
had plenty of things to do before shipping win2k.   There were a bunch of
things
that ended up in XP that were originally on the win2k schedule way before
DAV
was suggested but were cut.
Your comment indicates that the win2k team didnt like DAV.  Even if that is
in the book
you mention, I dont remember experiencing that sentiment from the people I
worked
with in NT networking.
BTW:  my original explanation of how the XP DAV worked came from one of
those
people who were in the NT networking team.


An OOps..
in my haste, I definitely forgot to include the office/rosebud team in who
did a lot of work to make DAV happen for IE5/office2000...  They did a lot
of work.

Many of you will also remember Yaron Goland, who personally emitted a great
amount of hot air (as you know he can) preventing DAV from being cut
numerous times.


> Breaking Windows_  is a fascinating book, and explains all sorts of
oddities about MS and its integration (or lack thereof) in various versions
of Windows.
>
> Ken
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jm@jmason.org [mailto:jm@jmason.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:13 PM
> To: Jösh
> Cc: Justin Mason; Mike Dierken; FoRK@xent.com
> Subject: Re: Infoworld: WebDAV Comes of Age
>
>
>
> > > Why haven't they kept the old "backwards compatibility" APIs in sync,
and
> > > capable of doing the wonderful new stuff that the new APIs can do?
> > > It all seems to downright encourage third-party app breakage.
> > >
> > Im not quite sure i read you right.  Im assuming you are saying:
> > "Why didnt MSFT make the existing APIs apps use for file access
> > work with DAV in the first place.   What they did amounts to adding
> > new 'secret' APIs that break 3rd  party apps or make them not support
> > new things like MSFT apps do.."
>
> Hi Josh, (sorry about the delay in replying)
>
> That's more or less what I meant.  My POV is that, of these 2 options:
>
> > We analyzed our options.  The main two were:
> > 1)APIs to support a DAV URI as a file argument, we didnt actually think
> > of the drive mapping shortcut that XP uses.
> > 2) Implement a shell/namespace extension to support DAV in the same
> > way that FTP was supported for IE.
>
> #1 would have been the correct way to do it, to my mind, as #2 means
> that only new releases of third-party apps could get DAV support.
>
> However I see your points about the fact that the lower-level-stuff team
> would have had to buy in on that; and also the incompatibilities in other
> areas of existing file I/O, and how it could break backwards-compat in
> other ways...
>
> All in all, good explanation -- thanks!   I guess I haven't had to worry
> about long-term backwards compat in my own code a while ;)
>
> --j.
>
>
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
>