UNuntitaker_·Sep 14, 2015
In theory this all sounds fantastic, until you actually get to implement it and see that only a handfull of servers actually managed to implement it correctly. Probably because of its complexity. See also another comment from the Flock author: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Flock/issues/93#issuecomme...
>I'd say WebDAV is more mature, it has litmus[1] for testing implementations.
Within the first few weeks of writing vdirsyncer's testsuite, I already found a bug in SabreDAV, which is tested with litmus. I tried to raise this hole in their testsuite on their mailing list, but at the time their mailinglist was down.
>remoteStorage has as far as I know only one production instance running at 5apps [2].
Yes, that's sad. It has yet to be proven that implementations of remoteStorage will actually become more reliable than the ones for WebDAV
Read the rest
, but I'm confident that it's easier to get implementations right with remoteStorage.
>The benefits of using the RS protocol are mostly due to the CORS headers (which could be implemented easily for WebDAV) and the use of OAuth/Bearer, for which a PR exists for SabreDAV [3].
SabreDAV implementing it is cool. They're the best FOSS serverside implementation of the -DAV protocols I know.
But still: It's all optional. Servers implementing all of this is a luxury. Right now we're in a situation where even the stuff that isn't optional doesn't work.
Don't trust anything just because it has been around for a long time.