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

Re: svn commit: r1430185 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/svn_dav.h libsvn_ra_serf/options.c libsvn_ra_serf/ra_serf.h mod_dav_svn/version.c

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:56:58 -0500

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 12:14 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>>>> On 01/09/2013 03:10 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>>> I'm thinking about interoperability between svn 1.8-serf client and
>>>>> pre-1.8 server: currently we use non-bulk skelta mode and this leads
>>>>> PROPFINDs and GETs for each file/directory. I've added option to
>>>>> advertise inline props support to leave possibility to use bulk
>>>>> (send-all) mode for pre-1.8 server by default, while relying on server
>>>>> configuration for newer servers.
>>>> Ah, I see. So the client can say, "If you're going to force me to do a
>>>> zillion turnarounds, I'd rather take the all-in-one-response option,
>>>> please." Seems reasonable.
>>> Yes, that was my plan. The only argument that I found against this
>>> approach that we will have many different modes depending of
>>> server/client versions and configurations:
>>> client server behavior
>>> 1.8.x-serf 1.8.x skelta-mode without
>>> propfinds (unless configured by server)
>>> 1.8.x-serf 1.7.x bulk-mode
>>> 1.7.x-serf 1.7.x skelta-mode with propfinds
>>> 1.7.x-neon 1.7.x bulk-mode
>>> But it makes sense: upgrading only one part (server or client) doesn't
>>> change network protocol, which is good thing IMHO.
>> +1 from me.
> Implemented in r1432139.

I just tested this using a recent trunk version against a SVN 1.7.8
server. One thing I noticed is that the client is still issuing a
PROPFIND request for every folder. There was just the single REPORT
request and no GET requests, but still a lot of PROPFIND requests.

If the client issued the Neon-style REPORT request then shouldn't the
response have contained everything it needed to avoid those PROPFIND

Mark Phippard
Received on 2013-01-18 16:57:30 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.