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

Re: Issue #2991 resolved, but questions remain.

From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-11-07 12:09:40 CET

On 11/7/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> "Ben Collins-Sussman" <sussman@red-bean.com> writes:
> > I missed the backstory here: it turns out that OPTIONS wasn't usable
> > for feature negotiation? I mean, that's what the WebDAV and DeltaV
> > specs say it's for. Did you end up using custom headers due to a neon
> > limitation?
> I had some concerns about connection boundaries in ra_dav, but in
> retrospect, they're silly. I don't know what I was thinking. I'll
> try moving this to a single OPTIONS request (namely, the one we
> already use to discover the server's capabilities) and if the
> capabilities stay set, then we're golden.
> Thanks for the review!

Can you expand on what you think you're saying here? I don't get the
solution you two are discussing:

1) I think Ben is talking about discovering server capabilities while
you are talking about sending client capabilities to the server.
2) HTTP is stateless, meaning that stuff from a previous request
should not 'stick'.

These two things are what's confusing me. I hope you understand me
enough to make me understand you :-)



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 7 12:09:55 2007

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.