On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 01:05:40PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:51, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > > 2. mod_dav_svn notices whether the incoming lock was created by
> > > an svn client or a generic DAV client.
> >
> > I'd rather see us test whether the author field is minimal or not. If
> > it looks like <D:author>blah</D:author>, it would be nice to unpackage
> > it regardless of whether the client is a generic DAV client. My theory
> > is that most DAV clients will send a minimal author spec, and it would
> > be nice not to display their lock fields as junk to non-dav clients.
>
> Agreed. This is/was the original solution that Ben and I worked thru via
> AIM. We came up with an idea to detect "minimal" and do the stripping.
>
> I think the current problem is that if you're looking at a lock->comment,
> then how does mod_dav_svn determine whether it was stripped (and needs
> wrapping), or should be passed along unchanged?
>
> A simple detection rule might be, "is the first character '<' ?" But what
> if a comment can legitimately contain that? Then you could end up a
> DAV:owner tag wrapped around some content that it shouldn't have wrapped.
>
A more sophisticated solution would be to try to parse the lock->comment
as XML. If it is well-formed and consists of an <D:owner> element with
arbitrary contents and attributes, just pass it through. Else wrap it in
<D:owner>. OK, this doesn't work if an svn client passes <D:owner
...>blah</D:owner> as the comment (wrapped in another D:owner for
marshalling), but would that be a problem in practice?
This is so obvious, I must be missing something fundamental...
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 14 21:28:58 2005