DeltaV vs ra_dav [was: Re: ideas to make svn update faster.]

[Daniel Patterson <da...@danpat.net>]

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
>> It has long been my position that we should give up on DeltaV (which is
>> a failed standard, in my opinion, and one that doesn't fit our
>> architecture) and consider ourselves to be talking a private versioning
>> protocol over HTTP/DAV.  As part of that, we could feel free to
>
> I do agree that the current situation is frustrating. For instance, none
> of the currently available DeltaV clients works with a Subversion server
> because it fails to implement lots of mandatory stuff.
>
> On the other hand, I do disagree that dropping the goal of becoming
> RFC3253 compliant would be good :-).

  Would it make any sense to divide the Subversion-over-HTTP RA layer
  into two parts?  A server-side-only "mod_dav_deltav_svn", and
  rename the current "mod_dav_svn" to "mod_svn" (or somesuch).

  In this setup, mod_dav_deltav_svn would allow DeltaV clients
  to talk to a Subversion server.  mod_svn is used by ra_dav
  to allow Subversion clients to talk to Subversion servers
  over HTTP in an optimised way.

  It's probably a lot of extra work to maintain two Apache modules
  with very different behaviours though.  Plus, is there any intention
  of making Subversion a valid DeltaV *client* as well?

daniel

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: DeltaV vs ra_dav [was: Re: ideas to make svn update faster.]

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Daniel Patterson wrote:

>  It's probably a lot of extra work to maintain two Apache modules
>  with very different behaviours though.
>
Yes, so I really don't think it makes sense. One module is quite capable 
of doing it all, but of course would have to be developed a bit 
differently than it is now. For example, we'd have to test with generic 
clients.

>  Plus, is there any intention
>  of making Subversion a valid DeltaV *client* as well?
>  
>
I don't think it makes sense to do that.

-- Brane


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org