Re: [Duplicity-talk] Anyone using duplicity with box.net (webdavs)?

[Kenneth Loafman]

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:59 AM, <address@hidden> wrote:

On 29.02.2012 11:43, SanskritFritz wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:07 AM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 29.02.2012 10:37, SanskritFritz wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> as this isn't the first time that listbody modding helped and i am also interested in box.net anybody disagreeing in making the listbody host aware, meaning switching known to work listbodies by host name?
>>>
>>> Host aware? Wouldn't it be better to make it webdav server-version aware rather?
>>>
>>
>> then we'd have to issue an initial request to the server just to determine the server software, if it is chatty enough it'll tell us in the http headers, but still have to be parsed properly. i am not into webdav, so i don't know if there is a way to properly ask a server what software/version it is in case the headers are useless.
>>
>> but seeing all these different implementations i'd bet that going by hostname (say second level domainbased e.g. box.net) assuming they don't use different implementations in their loadbalancing should be quite easy and safe to implement.
>
> So you imagine the hosts list holding the exceptions to the default
> server behaviour?

right

>Because I'm afraid such list could otherwise grow
> pretty large with all the free and nonfree offerings around. Also, who
> would maintain such a list?
>

let's start small and see. if it get's bigger there is always the possibility to externalize the listbodies into files, which are named like the host or such.

@ken: objections?

No objections.

Too bad there is not a client for Webdav like NcFTP that has gone to this trouble already.

...Ken