Re: Performance of "svn lock *"
On 12/17/13 7:06 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Just piping in on this one point. POST is perfectly acceptable here,
> and is not in conflict with the DAV spec in the least. Just because we
> add a new route for locking/unlocked multiple paths (via POST) doesn't
> mean we'll stop supporting the DAV LOCK/UNLOCK one-path-at-a-time route.
> That's all the compatibility -- with old Subversion clients and generic
> WebDAV clients alike -- that we need to fuss with.
I agree with this. We've already started down the path of implementing our own
more efficient protocol with HTTPv2. While I think we should limit where we
deviate, if there's a good reason then we should do so. The only alternative
in my opinion is to start writing RFCs to update DAV. Maybe that's a good
thing to do anyway. But at this point I doubt there's much interest in DAV let
The changes we've made so far with HTTPv2 were to save round trips. While
collapsing LOCK requests into a single request wouldn't be as beneficial as the
HTTPv2 changes I don't really see a reason to say we shouldn't do this if
someone wants to do the work.
Received on 2013-12-18 02:18:26 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev