Re: [PATCH v2] HTTPv2 allow client to control transaction name in protocol
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 04:40, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
>> Basically, the server is responding with somebody the requestor
>> already knows. So I wonder which approach is "best". It seems to be
>> kinda six-of-one/half-dozen-of-another. I suspect the server just
>> needs an if/else, so that might not be nearly the burden relative
>> modifying the proxy to add that header.
> The server needs an "if" in order to avoid sending TXN-NAME when it
> receives VTXN-NAME (and not sending TXN-NAME is the main reason for this
> change). If the server doesn't send VTXN-NAME then the response is not
> complete and the server is relying on the the proxy to make it complete.
> I think it is better if the server generates a complete response.
The proxy is the one altering the request/response flow. From the
server's standpoint, the client (in this case, the proxy) already
knows the name. Why should the server tell it what it already knows?
Why should it put that useless information onto the wire?
Received on 2011-03-09 12:03:08 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev