> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Dixon [mailto:michael.dixon_at_denovosoftware.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 30 juli 2010 2:55
> To: C. Michael Pilato
> Cc: Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: Callbacks, prompts, etc. for issue 2779
> On 7/29/2010 9:43 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > On 07/29/2010 12:28 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> >> If we just do the redirects, might a user just not perceive SVN as
> being slow?
> > Well, the redirect should be a one-time event. The working copy is
> > (using svn_client_relocate()) to point to the new, successfully
> > URL. From then on, it's business as usually for the working copy.
> It's not
> > like we're constantly following redirects because the working copy
> has never
> > been relocated or anything.
> My apologies for jumping in here if I'm misunderstanding the issue, but
> the combination of "HTTP", "redirect" and "one-time event" pushed me
> of passive list-reading mode.
> For a 301 redirect, sure, a relocate is appropriate. For other 3xx
> redirects, it may not be. I'm sure you've seen it, but:
> In particular, 302 and 307 are strictly temporary. There's also a note
> in 307 that redirection isn't allowed for anything other than GET or
> HEAD without prompting the user.
> It's up to you whether you think it's worth the effort or not, though.
> mean, there's a lot of code out there that doesn't follow protocol
> exactly, and it sounds like always doing a relocate would at least be
> better than the current situation. I just wanted to make sure you
> get to the end of your branch and go "oh hey, that's right, there are
> those other redirect codes...".
I think your 'detect if there is really a repository on the other side of the redirect' takes care of this, but we shouldn't forget that many webservers send a redirect on common errors like not-found (404) or server errors (500).
Received on 2010-07-30 09:58:06 CEST