Re: HTTP protocol v2: single commit request, or many PUTs?
Greg Stein wrote:
> Hunh? There is an Overwrite: header that can be used with COPY. If we
> want failure, then we can use that header.
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:43 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> I was kinda hoping we could *stop* using COPY because mod_dav enforces a
>> semantic that doesn't jive with that of our RA design, namely that it
>> silently permits overwrites of copy targets where our other RA layers prefer
>> to raise an error. (issue #3314)
>> A strike against the single-request approach is that our server-side
>> operational logging quality severely degrades unless we move away from our
>> policy of logging one line per request.
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>> There ARE NO "turnarounds". You just pipeline a bunch of PUTs up
>>> there. For all intents and purposes, it *looks* like one big mother
>>> Don't forget that a commit also has COPY and DELETE operations going
>>> on, too. And in the future, maybe a MOVE or two :-)
>>> IMO, it is easier to understand if you keep the operations separate
>>> rather than glom them all into one bigass request. Those big glommed
>>> requests then need to be parsed to be broken up. They also don't
>>> restart very well in the face of network failure, packet drops, or
>>> connection closures.
>> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
>> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-11-10 16:47:40 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev