[virt-tools-list] [PATCHv2 virt-viewer 00/10] shared folder preferences

[Fabiano Fidêncio]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Marc-André Lureau <mlureau at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> So, with this email I'll address the problems I had with the usability
>> and I've tested against a Windows 7 machine, using the spice-webdav
>> binary from https://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/spice-webdavd-x86-2.0.msi.
>> The code review will be addressed in each patch if there is something
>> to be mentioned ....
>>
>> 1) As soon I run the map.driver.bat I can see these warnings:
>> (remote-viewer:26077): GSpice-WARNING **: read error: Stream is already
>> closed
>
> Not sure what's going on, I would need details to reproduce. I don't think that should prevent that series going in though, is it is very likely elsewhere.
>
>>
>> 2) Read-Only:
>> It works in the sense that, if you try to delete a file/folder on the
>> guest-side, it won't be deleted on the client-side.
>
> That's the main point :)
>
>> On the other hand for a few times that I've tried to delete a
>> folder/file I had the following issue:
>> - Folder is deleted on guest-side (iow, it seems to be deleted), but
>> it is not deleted on client-side
>> - Folder takes forever to be deleted (or to show an error) and then
>> the "Explorer"(?) just crashed and I had to reboot my machine :-(
>> - Folder is not deleted, but a way cryptic error is shown in the guest.
>
> Guest issues to me. The server should reply with 403 or similar. I guess one way to improve the situation would be to modify the file & folders permissions (although the guest may still use its cache if you change permissions dynamically)
>
>> Also, enabling and disabling the read-only flag seemed to make the
>> guest a bit confused. I didn't go further debugging it at this moment.
>
> Well, the webdav implemenations of Windows (or gvfs) aren't perfect. But it could be server fault. It would be great to have some details, again that should not be an impediment for virt-viewer to gain these patches.
>

For your answers for 1) and 2):
I'll retest it and open the necessary bugs. Would be great to, at
least, mention the limitations in the commit logs.

>> 3) Preferences UI:
>> I don't know the details of the phodav implementation, but, if
>> possible, I'd prefer a way to share more than one folder at the same
>> time.
>> For this, a different UI would be appreciated (something with a button
>> to: "share a folder" and then a list of shared-folders and theirs
>> privacy settings
>
> That's a future improvement, one thing at a time is better than nothing.
> Patches welcome!

So, how is it nowadays? Does Phodav allow to share more than one
folder at the same time?
If it is the case I do not see it as an improvement, but as something
that could be done for this first implementation.
Otherwise, okay, we can live with it as it is now ..

Ah, it just reminds me another thing that I didn't test ... what about
sharing the same folder with more than one guest? What about sharing
the same folder as read-only with one guest and as read-write with
another, does it work?

Best Regards,
-- 
Fabiano Fidêncio