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

Re: svn commit: r33366 - trunk/notes

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:40:10 +0200

Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> In general, I'm not crazy-opposed. You're entirely right: the vision
>>> of WebDAV (or "WebDA") came to fruition. DeltaV did not, so attempting
>>> to adhere strongly to DeltaV really makes little pragmatic sense.
>>>
>>> Within the scope of the (new) design, I *do* think it would be
>>> interesting to make it DAV-capable. i.e. is the URL namespace both
>>> DAV-aware *and* svn-aware? Given that DAV does not use POST, then I
>>> maintain you could probably mesh the two pretty easily. The "new"
>>> client would do some interesting GETs and POSTs, and a DAV client (not
>>> svn! a downlevel client) would throw in a couple PROPFINDs, and if we
>>> reach a bit, then some autoversioning around PUT and DELETE.
>>>
>>> IOW, what I might suggest is a mesh of your simplified protocol, with
>>> the related DAV support for Windows, Mac, Linux, and other software
>>> DAV-users. An admin could install mod_svn and get speed *and* DAV
>>> capability.
>>>
>>>
>> I agree that a SVN DAV plugin for dumb clients is a good thing ... well,
>> a major selling point in the non-techie parts of the corporate
>> environment, heh. But cramming both into a single httpd module seems
>> like serious overkill and suspiciously close to what we have now.
>> Unmaintainable nightmare, don't y'know. Keep 'em separate and simple.
>>
>
> Possibly. Downlevel support is not that hard if it is read-only, so
> the answer might be to scrap auto-versioning from the "DAV add-on"
> portion. I'd still be curious about auto-versioning, and what the
> additional work *really* means.
>

I should've said "DAV autoversioning" rather than "DAV plugin for dumb
clients". Frankly the only real benefit of DAV over a custom protocol
that I've ever seen is the autoversioning bit.

-- Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-01 11:40:28 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.