On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, C. Michael Pilato <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/18/2012 04:15 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Ivan Zhakov <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> I meant one PROPFIND per directory. I didn't see where PROPFIND with >>>> "1" depth is created. It used only in svn_ra_serf__get_dir() but not >>>> in update driver code. >>> >>> Today, we do a PROPFIND per node. I want to change it to >>> per-directory. IOW, on my todo list. (there is an open issue about it) >>> >> This is future plan, but Mike said that we currently send PROPFIND >> with depth "1" for each added directory. > > I was referring to Greg's future plan using present-tense verbs. Sorry for > the confusion. > > Today, we send one depth-zero PROPFIND per node (files and directories both). > > I have a patch which reduces this to one depth-zero PROPFIND per directory > (because file props are delivered inline in the REPORT response). > > Greg was suggesting that we not bother with my patch, because he wants to > also reduce this to one PROPFIND per directory, but those PROPFINDs would be > depth-one. So, all properties would still be delivered via PROPFINDs (as > opposed to inline in the REPORT respones) as are today, but we'd use one > (larger, depth-one) PROPFIND per directory instead of one PROPFIND per > directory-and-file. > > And if this fails to clear things up, too bad -- I quit and we'll just talk > about in Berlin. :-P
Unless I'm completely blind, I'm not seeing the patch on-list. But, yay, for imaginary patches! =) I wouldn't be terribly concerned about mergeinfo or property sizes - the data has to get sent to the client *somehow* - it's just a question of what's the most efficient way to send it. It's not the RA layer's issue if the properties are big...IOW, we should resolve that somewhere else. =P Apropos of my other post to dev@ I just sent, I'm curious how your patch handles the editor drive issues. Would we be leaking handles if we set the properties like that? -- justin
