Julian Foad <julian.f...@wandisco.com> writes: > One thing that's not 100% clear from the protocol doc update is whether > the server sends *both* txn names in response, or just the "V" version. > If it sends both, then we need to specify whether the client has to use > the "V" version or can choose to use either one, or can mix accesses > arbitrarily using either. I can't think of any reason the server would > need to send both, so can we keep things simple by specifying that it > doesn't?
The server sends one or the other, not both. > Additionally, this response will contain some new URL stub values: > > SVN-Rev-Stub: /REPOS-ROOT/!svn/rev > SVN-Rev-Root-Stub: /REPOS-ROOT/!svn/rvr > SVN-Txn-Stub: /REPOS-ROOT/!svn/txn > SVN-Txn-Root-Stub: /REPOS-ROOT/!svn/txr > > Should it send "vtxn" and "vtxr" stubs too, or instead? Those are not in the POST response. The server already sends SVN-Txn-Stub and SVN-Txn-Root-Stub during capabilities negotiation, the patch makes it send SVN-VTxn-Stub and SVN-VTxn-Root stub as well. > (I don't > understand why the protocol needs to send these stubs explicitly at all: > is there some reason why these cannot just be constructed by the > client?) -- Philip
