Re: [rfc] redirects with neon
From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2002-03-29 20:27:13 CET
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 08:50:43PM -0500, Mark Benedetto King wrote:
If they were temporary redirects, then we wouldn't be pushing URLs back to
> I don't think write operations should be redirected.
Yah... good point on the redirect on writes. We probably don't want to allow
> Of course, neon already deviates (intentionally) from this behaviour, but
RFC 2616 was too specific when it mentioned GET/HEAD. The *intent* (and
> If you implement the read-only slaves as write-through caches, you
Yup. But recognize: if a read-only slave is simply a caching proxy, then the
Cheers,
-- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.orgReceived on Fri Mar 29 20:23:31 2002 |
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.