On Jul 9, 2013 12:52 PM, "Ben Reser" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> > Have we considered just turning off chunked requests entirely until
> > Serf has a fix to automatically detect and handle servers that don't
> > support chunked requests? I've seen a lot of disc
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> Have we considered just turning off chunked requests entirely until
> Serf has a fix to automatically detect and handle servers that don't
> support chunked requests? I've seen a lot of discussion about the
> cost of doing an extra round trip to
Lieven Govaerts writes:
> First of all, because that's not guaranteed to be or stay that way.
> Take for instance svnsync. It currently sends two non-pipelined
> OPTIONS requests (to my surprise) from:
> 1. svn_ra_serf__exchange_capabilities
> 2. svn_ra_serf__v2_get_youngest_revnum
>
> I consider
Hi Philip,
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Lieven Govaerts writes:
>
>> Note, again: Serf will not have a feature to automatically detect that
>> servers don't support chunked requests. Such a check is implemented in
>> ra_serf with the extra OPTIONS request, there's no o
Lieven Govaerts writes:
> Note, again: Serf will not have a feature to automatically detect that
> servers don't support chunked requests. Such a check is implemented in
> ra_serf with the extra OPTIONS request, there's no other way to do
> this without the extra roundtrip.
There is another way:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
[..]
> Have we considered just turning off chunked requests entirely until
> Serf has a fix to automatically detect and handle servers that don't
> support chunked requests?
Note, again: Serf will not have a feature to automatically detect that
ser
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> If you're going to vote this way, then I think you need to say what would
> solve the issue for you. We probably don't want to play "bring me another
> rock".
I'm pretty sure that Daniel would accept my suggestion in the other thread of
[[[
I'd
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 12:52:34AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> If you're going to vote this way, then I think you need to say what would
> solve the issue for you.
"http-probe-chunking"
> We probably don't want to play "bring me another rock".
>
> Note: I see the term "busted" is from svn's point
If you're going to vote this way, then I think you need to say what would
solve the issue for you. We probably don't want to play "bring me another
rock".
Note: I see the term "busted" is from svn's point of view, NOT the protocol
definition, and since this is *our* config, then it is entirely rea
9 matches
Mail list logo
