Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-09-03 Thread Branko Čibej
On 03.09.2012 10:30, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, C. Michael Pilato >> wrote: >>> On 08/30/2012 10:45 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Theoretica

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-09-03 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, C. Michael Pilato > wrote: >> On 08/30/2012 10:45 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, C. Michael Pilato >>> wrote: Theoretically, though, it seems reasonable that my approach wo

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-31 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, C. Michael Pilato >> wrote: >> > On 08/30/2012 10:45 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, C. Michael Pilato >> >> wrote: >

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-31 Thread Mark Phippard
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, C. Michael Pilato > wrote: > > On 08/30/2012 10:45 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, C. Michael Pilato > wrote: > >>> Theoretically, though, it seems reasonable that my approach wo

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-31 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 08/30/2012 10:45 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, C. Michael Pilato >> wrote: >>> Theoretically, though, it seems reasonable that my approach would have the >>> distinct non-feature of potentially having th

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-30 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 08/30/2012 10:45 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, C. Michael Pilato > wrote: >> Theoretically, though, it seems reasonable that my approach would have the >> distinct non-feature of potentially having the client caching the properties >> for an entire tree in memory, j

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-30 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 08/30/2012 08:05 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> On 08/30/2012 06:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato >>> wrote: I misremembered Greg and Justin's attitude toward my approach, t

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-30 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 08/30/2012 08:05 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 08/30/2012 06:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato >> wrote: >>> I misremembered Greg and Justin's attitude toward my approach, thinking they >>> were just flatly opposed. As I re-read the rele

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-30 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 08/30/2012 06:10 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato > 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 perhap

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-30 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato 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

Re: Inline added-item properties in REPORT response

2012-08-29 Thread Philip Martin
"C. Michael Pilato" writes: > - There's an issue out there (which I can't find right now) that talks > about problems with Serf's requeueing of requests. I don't recall > the details, but my understanding was that in certain scenarios > the PROPFIND for a file might get (re)queued