I (Julian Foad) wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 08:37 -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Apparently, the PROPFIND is using the proxy at a time when it needs to > > > be using the master. > > > > The client has no knowledge of the master - the slave a completely > > transparent proxy. The only way to distinguish between a PROPFIND for > > an update or a commit is to have the client give some indication about > > what it's intending. > > It doesn't sound like we're asking quite the right question. Rather than > "Is this PROPFIND for an update or is it for a commit?", I think we need > to be asking something like "Does this PROPFIND need to see a more > recent revision than the latest cached revision? It does if this client > has (ever) created or is currently creating a newer revision." > > Another way to look at the whole issue is that the proxy should give the > client a consistent view of what revision is "head". It doesn't matter > if that revision number is a bit older than the master's head, but as > soon as that client has reason to have any knowledge of a newer revision > (e.g. by doing a commit), the proxy should from that moment onwards > provide a view of that newer revision. > > The question then is how to identify "this client" - if the best > information we have is to recognize "this client connection" then we > can't support multi-connection requests automatically (except by > heuristics). In that case, the information the client needs to supply is > some sort of unique client id, or alternatively its last known head > revision number. I don't think any sort of "operation name" is > sufficient, because, for example, "svn commit" followed immediately by > "svn up" should be guaranteed to update the WC to at least the revision > number of the commit, whereas with the proposed operation-name scheme I > think it would update to the last cached revision which can be older > than the commit.
When I say, "I think ...", I mean that I am just thinking through in my head how I suppose this would work. I hope someone more knoledgeable or who is prepared to test it will correct me if I'm wrong. - Julian
