> In general, I like the idea of shipping the webdav plugin.
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to merge some (all?) of this code into the HTTP
> implementation? I don't see a particular reason why WebDAV support couldn't be
> in the default HTTP implementation.
'default' is the key word here, the very webdav implementation was against pycurl but it couldn't be completed (if my memory serves me well).
> At the very least it will mean people no
> longer see a mkdir() not implemented error when they try to write over HTTP
> but instead a "remote server doesn't support MKDIR" error.
Goog point, worth filing a bug if we agree to land this.
> That said, I don't think this integration should be a blocker for merging
> the webdav plugin into core. Let's move it one step at a time. :-)
Cool, I'm not sure how to interpret this a vote though ;)
> In general, I like the idea of shipping the webdav plugin.
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to merge some (all?) of this code into the HTTP
> implementation? I don't see a particular reason why WebDAV support couldn't be
> in the default HTTP implementation.
'default' is the key word here, the very webdav implementation was against pycurl but it couldn't be completed (if my memory serves me well).
> At the very least it will mean people no
> longer see a mkdir() not implemented error when they try to write over HTTP
> but instead a "remote server doesn't support MKDIR" error.
Goog point, worth filing a bug if we agree to land this.
> That said, I don't think this integration should be a blocker for merging
> the webdav plugin into core. Let's move it one step at a time. :-)
Cool, I'm not sure how to interpret this a vote though ;)