On 08/30/2012 06:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> > wrote: >> I misremembered Greg and Justin's attitude toward my approach, thinking they >> were just flatly opposed. As I re-read the relevant threads, though, I >> think it's clear that perhaps both my approach and their PROPFIND-Depth-1 >> approach would be valuable. The problem, as I see it, is that the >> complexity of the PROPFIND-Depth-1 change is far greater than my simple >> patch, and nobody is stepping up to own it. > > Yes, I don't think it was that we were flatly opposed - it's that we > can figure out a way to reduce the number of requests even against > older servers - which is a good thing. But, let's not stand in the > way of progress if there is a new server. So, commit away! -- justin
Thanks for clarifying. Before I commit away, though, it occurred to me last night that I've not done anything to profile the memory usage characteristics of this approach. I need to understand what happens if the REPORT response processing (and property queuing) vastly out-paces the GETs and such. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
