On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 03:27, Blair Zajac<blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
> I met some corporate customers today who were wondering if we are
> going to consider HTTP v2 to be a public API? We will have to support
> the HTTP v2 protocol that gets deployed in 1.7 indefinitely so we will
> always need to deal with backwards compatibility with 1.7 clients and
> hence preserve that API, but are we going to make any guarantees about
> the protocol for future versions? Are we going to make a statement
> that the protocol is public or private just for svn's use and hands
> off, do not use?
IMO, "private, use with care." We obviously have to continue to
maintain it for our *own* compatibility purposes, but I do not believe
that we (as a community) have signed up to support the protocol to be
used *outside* of ra_serf/mod_dav_svn.
For example, if somebody writes me an email saying, "I sent a PROPFIND
like <this> to <that> URL, but it didn't work", then I'd say "eh?
you're not using libsvn_ra_serf? bah. go have fun on your own."
> This hasn't been an issue with the svnserve protocol, but it's going
> to be very easy to write a non-svn client that interacts with
> Subversion using the new API.
> Also, not that anyone has said this, but I don't think we should ever
> drop the WebDAV protocol as there are shops out there that mount svn
> for web developers or non-SCM aware departments for auto-versioning.
> It's a feature we shouldn't loose.
Completely agreed, and I don't think anybody has suggested dropping it
for that very reason.
We've given up on *DeltaV*, but not on Class 1 and Class 2 WebDAV.
Received on 2009-06-24 04:11:03 CEST