Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:36, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: >> Steve Simon wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Many appologies if this is not the correct place to ask about >>> svn's dav support, if so please rediect me. >>> >>> AS per the subject, SVN's WebDAV server does not seem to >>> be honouring partial HTTP GETs even though it appears to >>> offer the facility with >>> >>> Accept-Range: bytes >> [...] >> >>> Would you expect svn to support partial gets? Is SVN likely to support >>> partial GETs in the future? >> I wouldn't expect that support to exist today because Subversion's clients >> don't require it (and that's really the driver for most of our server-side >> features). Is it likely to grow that support in the future? Only if >> someone writes the code. We've no reason to reject that enhancement, but >> (again, because Subversion clients don't make use of the functionality) also >> no compelling reason to prioritize it highly. > > Apache itself should be handling the ranged-GET operation. IOW, we > shouldn't have to do anything. So maybe we broke Apache's range > handling.
Apache doesn't pass along the range information to the content provider?
That seems rather inefficient, requiring that providers deliver the full
contents just so Apache can ignore some/most of them. Weird, but ultimately
off-topic here.
Glancing through the Apache sources, I'm guessing that byterange_filter.c is
the relevant code here. That filter has this comment:
/* Don't attempt to do byte range work if this brigade doesn't
* contain an EOS, or if any of the buckets has an unknown length;
* this avoids the cases where it is expensive to perform
* byteranging (i.e. may require arbitrary amounts of memory). */
I wonder if perhaps mod_dav_svn is creating naughty buckets?
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
