On 01/06/2010 09:09 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Philip Martin wrote:
>
>> Kamesh Jayachandran<kamesh_at_collab.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> This patch is with respect to the original thread
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201001.mbox/browser
>>>
>> This one I suppose:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201001.mbox/<4B41F1BD.8090209@collab.net>
>>
>> It includes:
>>
>> "We can proxy this request to the Master but we *should not* do
>> that if it is for read operation."
>>
> With all due respect, the proposed solution looks enormous compared to the
> size of the problem. Does the original problem exist in HTTPv2? At a
> minimum, could the ra_dav providers not annotate the PROPFIND as
> "dont-proxy-this" without even touching the RA (and higher) APIs?
>
>
May be I can tweak 'svn_ra_neon__get_one_prop' which I believe the one
that makes the problematic PROPFIND call.
Though the quantum of change would be relatively smaller than my
original patch, I do *not* like it as it looks too secretive to set one
custom flag deep inside the code for one special case.
My patch has the additional(tangential to its original intension)
benefit of 'administrative control of activity based on operation names'.
With regards
Kamesh Jayachandran
Received on 2010-01-08 17:14:56 CET