On 12/17/13 7:06 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Just piping in on this one point. POST is perfectly acceptable here, > and is not in conflict with the DAV spec in the least. Just because we > add a new route for locking/unlocked multiple paths (via POST) doesn't > mean we'll stop supporting the DAV LOCK/UNLOCK one-path-at-a-time route. > That's all the compatibility -- with old Subversion clients and generic > WebDAV clients alike -- that we need to fuss with.
I agree with this. We've already started down the path of implementing our own more efficient protocol with HTTPv2. While I think we should limit where we deviate, if there's a good reason then we should do so. The only alternative in my opinion is to start writing RFCs to update DAV. Maybe that's a good thing to do anyway. But at this point I doubt there's much interest in DAV let alone DeltaV. The changes we've made so far with HTTPv2 were to save round trips. While collapsing LOCK requests into a single request wouldn't be as beneficial as the HTTPv2 changes I don't really see a reason to say we shouldn't do this if someone wants to do the work.
