Re: [PATCH] overflow check in ra_serf + malfunction -> error

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> For some requests it might be safe, but in general it isn’t. And since the
> randomization added to the hash behavior the chance that it is unsafe
> increased.
>
> But I’m afraid that we originally added this feature to cover for some other
> stability problem. (I didn’t see many broken connections with neon before.
> Why do we see them for serf?)
>
> But I think we should remove these mid-request retries.
>
It was probably added to avoid issues with restarting authentication
requests or something. As you correctly pointed responses can be very
different because of hash randomization. So I'm going to remove
partially received requests functionality from ra_serf tomorrow.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com