Add support for remoteStorage

[forteller]

remoteStorage is an open protocol for per-user storage. I think it would help out all Free software and decentralized file storage/personal cloud systems if ownCloud would integrate support for it into its core, not just leave it to those who know enough to find and use a plugin.

Check out all the interesting features: http://remotestorage.io/

[karlitschek]

this was supported in the past. unfortunately no one maintained this feature so it broke and was removed. feel free to contribute to add it again

[forteller]

Thanks for the reply, @karlitschek! Unfortunately I only barely made it trough the introductory course on Java programming at the university, so I'm afraid I can only help by pointing out what others should do ;)

[PVince81]

CC @jancborchardt

[jancborchardt]

There is actually a remoteStorage app in the appstore: https://apps.owncloud.com/content/show.php?content=164178

If you look at the description though you will see it’s not a particularly good idea though. We had a bunch of experimentation and discussion (like owncloud-archive/apps#1260 ) and it turns out that it’s just a bit too complicated to add remoteStorage to ownCloud.

cc @michielbdejong @skddc @kaeff for info, in case the situation has changed.

[jancborchardt]

And if someone is interested, you can track work on CORS in ownCloud at #10415

[michielbdejong]

Yep!

[raucao]

turns out that it’s just a bit too complicated to add remoteStorage to ownCloud.

Not really, if it's added to core by core devs. It's just not feasible as an add-on.

[michielbdejong]

@skddc the second and third limitation from owncloud-archive/apps#1260 (comment) would still apply.

[raucao]

I don't think so, at least not for long. The 304 issue was fixed in Apache long ago (not sure if it's in stable now, though). And you can run it on the same port, with a different domain, no?

[raucao]

Uh, interesting:

CORS doesn't require those headers on a 304, and indeed browsers work without them present on it. This is because many 304s are generated from intermediary caches that can't be updated to know about CORS.

Recommend INVALID.

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51223

(Mixed it up with https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45341)

[michielbdejong]

Requiring two domain names and two TLS certs (and thus either TLS or two IPv4 addresses) is not a really attractive alternative to running on two ports.

Re Mark Nottingham's recent comment on that Apache ticket, I could not reproduce his findings, will comment there.

[raucao]

Requiring two domain names and two TLS certs (and thus either TLS or two IPv4 addresses) is not a really attractive alternative to running on two ports.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If you can run reStore on the same server, then you can also implement it in OwnCloud and have a second Apache vhost. There's no difference just because you're running a different backend process.

[raucao]

If you don't have a wildcard cert, or aren't ok with using a self-signed one, or not just get 2 (costs about 20 USD) normal ones, then that problem will be solved in 2015 by https://letsencrypt.org btw.

[michielbdejong]

I mean, it would change ownCloud from an easily hostable lamp application to an application that requires multiple vhosts.

[raucao]

That's not very complicated, though. Also, it could be an optional thing.

[jancborchardt]

It’s still complicated enough. And it doesn’t really provide much value unless the actual ownCloud data would be exposed (Contacts, Files etc). Otherwise you’re better off just hosting reStore.

[raucao]

It does provide a lot of value if you can use the same user accounts, because otherwise you have to manage users in 2 separate systems. Exposing OwnCloud's own data, that is currently stored in a proprietary format, would be icing on the cake in my view.

[raucao]

(Btw, I'm just commenting on what I consider weak arguments, I'm actually rather indifferent to having RS in OC or not. ;))