On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:08, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
>
>> And to be clear: the server *could* just remain silent, and the proxy
>> would insert the SVN-VTxn-Name header in the response back to the
>> client, right? Would that be an improvement/simplification?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Normal operation:
>
> - client sends POST
> - server creates transaction called TXN-NAME
> - server replies SVN-Txn-Name:TXN-NAME
> - client send !svn/txn/TXN-NAME
> - server extracts TXN-NAME
>
> VTXN operation:
>
> - client sends POST
> - proxy adds SVN-VTxn-Name:UUID
> - server creates transaction called TXN-NAME
> - server replies SVN-VTxn-Name:UUID
> - proxy passes
or:
- proxy adds: SVN-VTxn-Name:UUID
> - client sends !svn/vtxn/UUID
> - proxy passes
> - server extracts UUID and maps to TXN-NAME
So my question is whether to have the server do it, or have the proxy do it.
Basically, the server is responding with somebody the requestor
already knows. So I wonder which approach is "best". It seems to be
kinda six-of-one/half-dozen-of-another. I suspect the server just
needs an if/else, so that might not be nearly the burden relative
modifying the proxy to add that header.
Cheers,
-g
Received on 2011-03-08 21:02:40 CET