Re: Proposal: new fsfs.conf properties

On 12.07.2017 21:50, Paul Hammant wrote:
> You know, in all seriousness I think the (empty by default) list of
> exempted files suffixes the the best way forward. If suffixes is good
> enough for Apache itself to use (link provided earlier), it is good
> enough in this scenario on the server side of Svn.

The cases are completely different. Yes, httpd (optionally) uses file
name suffixes to set the Content-Type header, but the file names and
their content are completely controlled by the server administrator.

That's not the case with Subversion; quite the opposite.

> If the function in question doesn't know the file name then I that
> param should be added to the functions args (and backwards through all
> the methods in the stack until it's reached the place where the
> resource name was known).

Mmm ... interesting proposition. Also huge -1 because it'd be a really
awsome abstraction leak. :)

-- Brane
Received on 2017-07-13 08:21:18 CEST