Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:08 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> You think? You know we don't use ne_propfind*, right?
> I don't know why you have such an antagonistic tone.
Eek. Antagonism not intended, dude. I just couldn't piece together why
this might be difficult code to write and why it would need to be done in
Neon itself unless we were using Neon's propfind interfaces (which we used
> Of course I know that. The catch is that it's not just ne_propfind*
> that triggers PROPFIND.
Ah. Well, that would certainly put a kink in things.
> You can implement a cache, but I don't expect it to be an hour's worth
> of work and get 100% efficiency. You might be able to cut out a
> reasonably good chunk, but I don't expect that you will catch all of
> the uses - to do so, you'll very likely need to dive into neon itself.
> I fail to see the point if ra_serf already offers the functionality
> anyway...but I have no desire in stopping you if you wish to go down
> that rabbit hole.
Okey dokey. (I'm not "wishing" to go anywhere on this, though -- just
didn't want others who might to give up before they even started due to the
belief that Neon is fundamentally flawed in some way.)
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-05-28 22:52:38 CEST