[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: (FS) operational question

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_galois.collab.net>
Date: 2001-01-02 15:26:30 CET

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> Another point about why 1-to-1 mapping of URL to resource is handy: caching
> proxies. Even though v67 and v73 might be the same, the proxy will still
> need to fetch it.

Hmmm... (see below)...

> > The client isn't really using that information; it doesn't get to
> > actually "know" the node revision number. It's just acting as an
> > information store for the server.
> Agreed.
> > Although we do open ourselves up to
> > the possibility of poorly written clients which irresponsibly dissect
> > the supposedly-opaque version resource URL.
> We'll cover our butts quite a bit because other clients will want to use
> libsvn_client (or even libsvn_ra_dav). But your point is still valid.
> Even so... I happen to have no sympathy for those guys :-) F'em. :-)

Heh. I'm beginning to think using the node revision in the Version
Resource URL isn't so icko after all.

Greg S, your call, you understand the issues best here. Now that I'm
not longer confused between Version Resource URL and entries file
revision numbers, I feel less worried about what goes on the in the VR
URL. :-)

Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:19 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.