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

[edgar . soldin]

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?

..ede