On 09.07.2013 05:53, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org
> <mailto:ben_at_reser.org>> wrote:
> >...
>
> Greg's argument here mostly depends on the idea that Subversion is
> built to work against mod_dav_svn and any proxy or implementation that
> doesn't implement HTTP/1.1 with chunked requests support as
> mod_dav_svn does is busted. I find this argument very weak and
> unconvincing. Especially since this assumes that mod_dav_svn is the
> only server side implementation of our protocol. We know this is not
>
>
> For *this* project, that is absolutely the case. We have never said
> "let's work against any server anybody decides to implement." We write
> to our client, and our server, and third parties adapt to our changes.
You can't seriously claim that and in the same breath talk about HTTP
transport. We're either compliant or not. If we're not compliant, we
either fix the bug or stop calling it HTTP. You cannot unilaterally
decide that the HTTP spec says something else than is actually written
there (and corroborated by later, albeit draft versions).
Yes, we've come across broken proxies any number of times; but the
refusal to accept chunked transport in HTTP/1.1 is clearly not broken
since its anticipated and described by the HTTP spec.
And it is definitely not OK to make our users collateral damage in a
crusade against "busted" proxies. It's fine to print a big fat warning
that some host is behind a proxy that doesn't support such-and-such a
feature of the HTTP protocol which will make their latency suck; they
can go complain to the site admins. It's not fine to tell them to fiddle
with the config files that worked just fine before the upgrade to 1.8.
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane_at_wandisco.com
Received on 2013-07-10 04:51:24 CEST