[sword-devel] Remote Module Repository Wiki

[admin at bible.salterrae.net]

> I do understand the very real practical concerns about FTP you point
> out, but we have practically received almost no support emails from
> users not being able to install because FTP was blocked.  Most hosting
> services provide FTP access.  The issue we ran into before was some
> didn't provide anonymous ftp access, which we've rectified by adding
> username / password fields in our repository registry and support for
> this in our installer, and in reality to install an FTP server on a
> windows box is trivial compared to the ongoing maintenance of assuring
> zips are created and placed in the correct folder, an index file for the
> zips is created and kept updated whenever anything changes, etc.

I don't think that installing an FTP server is trivial.
I can't agree that 'most hosting services provide FTP access.'

Most cheep hosting services provide ftp access only for its maintainer,
ftp access is not permitted for public use.
HTTP services are name-based , FTP services are IP-based. So
if one want to service an FTP server, one must own one IP address
for it, contrary to the fact that many HTTP services can share one
IP address.

Furthermore FTP service needs two connections , one for control and
one for data. one is outgoing, another is incoming. this make
firewall rules very complexing.
Servicing an HTTP server is easy, and servicing an FTP server is annoying.
If both methods can serve same jobs, I would rather choose HTTP .

>
> It might seem trivial to us, and might actually be trivial for the
> publishers, in practice (and might eventually be how we end up going if
> we do find real roadblocks with our current FTP mechanism), but:
>

-- 
admin at bible.salterrae.net