On 08/30/2012 06:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> I misremembered Greg and Justin's attitude toward my approach, thinking they
>> were just flatly opposed. As I re-read the relevant threads, though, I
>> think it's clear that perhaps both my approach and their PROPFIND-Depth-1
>> approach would be valuable. The problem, as I see it, is that the
>> complexity of the PROPFIND-Depth-1 change is far greater than my simple
>> patch, and nobody is stepping up to own it.
>
> Yes, I don't think it was that we were flatly opposed - it's that we
> can figure out a way to reduce the number of requests even against
> older servers - which is a good thing. But, let's not stand in the
> way of progress if there is a new server. So, commit away! -- justin
Thanks for clarifying. Before I commit away, though, it occurred to me last
night that I've not done anything to profile the memory usage
characteristics of this approach. I need to understand what happens if the
REPORT response processing (and property queuing) vastly out-paces the GETs
and such.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2012-08-30 14:05:46 CEST