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

Re: [DISCUSS] delete ra_neon

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:42:49 -0400

On 05/18/2012 04:15 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I meant one PROPFIND per directory. I didn't see where PROPFIND with
>>> "1" depth is created. It used only in svn_ra_serf__get_dir() but not
>>> in update driver code.
>>
>> Today, we do a PROPFIND per node. I want to change it to
>> per-directory. IOW, on my todo list. (there is an open issue about it)
>>
> This is future plan, but Mike said that we currently send PROPFIND
> with depth "1" for each added directory.

I was referring to Greg's future plan using present-tense verbs. Sorry for
the confusion.

Today, we send one depth-zero PROPFIND per node (files and directories both).

I have a patch which reduces this to one depth-zero PROPFIND per directory
(because file props are delivered inline in the REPORT response).

Greg was suggesting that we not bother with my patch, because he wants to
also reduce this to one PROPFIND per directory, but those PROPFINDs would be
depth-one. So, all properties would still be delivered via PROPFINDs (as
opposed to inline in the REPORT respones) as are today, but we'd use one
(larger, depth-one) PROPFIND per directory instead of one PROPFIND per
directory-and-file.

And if this fails to clear things up, too bad -- I quit and we'll just talk
about in Berlin. :-P

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Enterprise Cloud Development

Received on 2012-05-18 22:43:34 CEST

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