Re: problem with dump/load

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 11:00:48PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> > Ben, Karl, Greg: do you remember why we didn't do this in the first
> > place? It really *is* a better solution, I think. Was it just so we
> > could have the conventional "Content-length" header?
>
> I remember we did say we wanted that specific header, because it was a
> conventional name. I think we tried too hard to make everything else
> extremely minimal, granted that header name, though.

For a couple reasons that I recall:

1) one Content-Length header to specify the body of the "message".
   essentially, by using Headers + Body (length specified by C-L), we could
   get some processing for free from libs that already understand that
   [ possibly a marginal benefit ]

2) the property parsing doesn't take a length, IIRC, so having the PROPS-END
   was necessary

Ben?

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org