On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:42 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
PROPFIND per directory has another problem: we have to save properties
for all children of directory in memory.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2012-05-19 17:16:01 CEST