>With all due respect, the proposed solution looks enormous compared to the >size of the problem.
It looks enormous for the sheer volume of signature changes! apart from the code change is minimal. I tend to imagine(may be artificially) its other uses unrelated to this thread. >Does the original problem exist in HTTPv2? I tried the following *with* my patch 2 days back, With Master and slave both being in 1.7.x ra_serf do *not* suffer from this problem(I committed text mod to one file) as it do not make the call to PROPFIND. It makes some POST requests to do the commit, Not sure how that one is immune to this issue. Will delve in to it tomorrow. >At a minimum, could the ra_dav providers not annotate the PROPFIND as >"dont-proxy-this" without even touching the RA (and higher) APIs? Rather we want 'proxy-this', anyway I could *not* find a easy way to figure out whether a given request PROPFIND is for read or write operation. With regards Kamesh Jayachandran
