Infra@ is not friendly to the dav approach, so I'm not going there. On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Stephen Connolly < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 13 February 2012 07:05, Kristian Rosenvold > <[email protected]> wrote: > > DAV has support for "lock" concept, which I somehow would > > assume a decent server-side implementation would map to a transaction? > > (I would rather improve dav_svn to make sure we can get 1 commit ;) > > I would have concern getting transaction time-outs... dav_svn is going > to be over http/https and given the "fun" deploying the mojo sites at > codehaus over webdav... [I am working with Ben on a SCP container that > can provide the fast site deploy we currently have @Apache to > Codehaus... I wonder if infra would be open to allowing that container > to run on apache hardware to allow effectively the same thing?] > > > > > Removed files should be quite simple; the server side file store is > enumerable > > and it would seem like a nice addition to the site plugin > > ("mirrorImage" or similar) > > I would really prefer adding features that has value to everyone > > > > As for a lower efficiency I'm sure that's real but do we really care ? > > (I'm assuming > > we can get 1 svn transaction and the overhead would be DAV ping-pong and > > maybe content comparison) > > > > Kristian > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
