On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 13:16, Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> If the client sends, or a proxy injects, an SVN-VTxn-Name header with >>> the POST request it defines the transaction name to be returned to the >>> client in the POST response. If the client recieves the new >>> SVN-VTxn-Name header it uses that name in the new URIs in the requests >>> that make up the commit. >> >> I don't understand why the *client* needs to read that header. The >> base URI that the server returns already has the proper txn name, >> right? >> >> Sending *to* the server creates the "client-provided" feature that you >> want to retain. I just don't understand the other direction. > > By default the client doesn't send the header, it receives SVN-Txn-Name > containing the server generated name and uses that in the txn/txr URIs. > A client could send SVN-VTxn-Name but most clients will not. If a proxy > inserts an SVN-VTxn-Name header into the request, the server replies > with an SVN-VTxn-Name header containing the proxy generated name. The > client then receives SVN-VTxn-Name containing the proxy generated name > and uses that with the vtxn/vtxr URIs.
Ah. Gotcha. Thanks. And to be clear: the server *could* just remain silent, and the proxy would insert the SVN-VTxn-Name header in the response back to the client, right? Would that be an improvement/simplification? Cheers, -g
