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

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 06:43, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> writes:
>
>> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> The proxy is the one altering the request/response flow. From the
>>> server's standpoint, the client (in this case, the proxy) already
>>> knows the name. Why should the server tell it what it already knows?
>>> Why should it put that useless information onto the wire?
>>
>> It's convenient to implement it that way, a very simple change in the
>> client send path allows testing the client recieve path.  If the server
>> doesn't send the header then testing will require a more complicated
>> client change, or the use of a proxy that sends the header.

Wait a minute. The svn client won't ever send this. So I'm not sure
what you mean by "client send path" here, or "requiring ... the use of
a proxy".

Your request for this feature is entirely predicated on a proxy. So of
course you need a proxy. And the client is never sending this header.

> And it may be more convenient for the proxy as well, but I've not looked
> at any proxy implementations so I can't say for certain.

What?! You must be looking at a proxy implementation. That is why you
want this feature.

I don't get it. First you mention "a proxy wants to do this, so I need
<this>", and then you say "but I haven't looked at proxies".

This seems inconsistent.

-g
Received on 2011-03-09 13:07:33 CET