[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 15:02:11 -0500

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

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.