[dev] WebDAV package v0.1

[Evert Pot]

>> Wouldn't a dependency be implied if anyone wants to use webdav  
>> functionality? Unless you are talking about using the tree for  
>> functionality beyond webdav..
>
> Yes, the latter.
>
>> If the reference in the _Application class is a concern, I'm pretty  
>> sure everything will work correctly, unless the actual  
>> 'getWebDavNode' or equivalent method would actually be executed.
>>
>> Can you help me understand the problem?
>
> We use the browse method not only for WebDAV access, but also  
> internally, to browse from one application to objects of a different  
> application. Since this feature resembles the same directory-like  
> tree like we use in WebDAV/CalDAV, we should share the code. I don't  
> stick to using a single browse() method, and I'm also fine with  
> requiring Sabre for people that want CalDAV support, but whatever we  
> chose for browsing the application resources should work without any  
> dependency on external code. Hope this makes things clearer.

It does make things clearer, however.. I don't think I'm up for the  
task to build this api. If you are looking to build something that  
provides tree-like access to the various horde components, well.. this  
is sort of out of the scope of what I'm trying to do.

Would it be an option if I can just focus on the parts that are more  
relevant to me? For me this would just be webdav and caldav protocol  
support. The resulting code _should_ be simple, so if there are future  
plans to map this to a unified backend, this should be doable.

By no means I'm trying to quickly whip something up and offload it for  
you guys to maintain, but I would like to stay within the scope of  
creating a simple layer that connects SabreDAV to Horde's controllers.  
I don't plan to make any changes in existing RPC methods. It sounds  
like they are already in use for other purposes, so perhaps this will  
even be an opportunity to remove some of the webdavisms from that  
code, such as obscure properties that only make sense for people with  
a fairly intimate knowledge of the specifications.

Effectively I'm proposing separating WebDAV integration from  
everything else, for the benefit of simplicity.

Evert