----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Behlendorf" <brian@collab.net>
To: "cap" <cap@mail.novosoft.ru>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: bxxp and subversion
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, cap wrote:
> > I have less understanding of DAV then BXXP so comparation with DAV could
be
> > incorrect. BXXP is not protocol. It is protocol framework that allow
quickly
> > create protocol like one needed for subversion.
> >
> > BXXP is more like HTTP 1.1 layer then DAV layer.
>
> The onus is on you to explain clearly to us why we should drop the
> hundreds of development hours that have been spent to this point. If you
> prefer, you could provide patches that implement this. The subversion
> developers are not swayed by hype; they need it very clearly spelled out
> to them what the *technical* advantages are. It would probably be best to
> start out by explaining what the specific problem is that you see with
> continuing to use DAV over HTTP, and then once there's agreement that it's
> an actual problem, explain why BXXP is the best solution to that problem.
>
I was confused by design docs. I infered from them that development has been
not started and design decision on protocol are not finalized. If
development is already started, then there is little sense to change on this
stage. I will revisit this later when currently planned protocol and network
layers implemtation of will take form.
Please update "Project Status" on http://subversion.tigris.org/index.html,
http://subversion.tigris.org/svn-design.html#Protocol and
http://subversion.tigris.org/svn-design.html#TOC_19 sections to infrom about
changed status of network and protocol layers.
Constantine
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006