Re: [PATCH v2] HTTPv2 allow client to control transaction name in protocol

Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> writes:

> One thing that's not 100% clear from the protocol doc update is whether
> the server sends *both* txn names in response, or just the "V" version.
> If it sends both, then we need to specify whether the client has to use
> the "V" version or can choose to use either one, or can mix accesses
> arbitrarily using either. I can't think of any reason the server would
> need to send both, so can we keep things simple by specifying that it
> doesn't?

The server sends one or the other, not both.

> Additionally, this response will contain some new URL stub values:
>
> SVN-Rev-Stub: /REPOS-ROOT/!svn/rev
> SVN-Rev-Root-Stub: /REPOS-ROOT/!svn/rvr
> SVN-Txn-Stub: /REPOS-ROOT/!svn/txn
> SVN-Txn-Root-Stub: /REPOS-ROOT/!svn/txr
>
> Should it send "vtxn" and "vtxr" stubs too, or instead?

Those are not in the POST response.

The server already sends SVN-Txn-Stub and SVN-Txn-Root-Stub during
capabilities negotiation, the patch makes it send SVN-VTxn-Stub and
SVN-VTxn-Root stub as well.

> (I don't
> understand why the protocol needs to send these stubs explicitly at all:
> is there some reason why these cannot just be constructed by the
> client?)

-- 
Philip