On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:08, Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > >> And to be clear: the server *could* just remain silent, and the proxy >> would insert the SVN-VTxn-Name header in the response back to the >> client, right? Would that be an improvement/simplification? > > I don't think so. > > Normal operation: > > - client sends POST > - server creates transaction called TXN-NAME > - server replies SVN-Txn-Name:TXN-NAME > - client send !svn/txn/TXN-NAME > - server extracts TXN-NAME > > VTXN operation: > > - client sends POST > - proxy adds SVN-VTxn-Name:UUID > - server creates transaction called TXN-NAME > - server replies SVN-VTxn-Name:UUID > - proxy passes
or: - proxy adds: SVN-VTxn-Name:UUID > - client sends !svn/vtxn/UUID > - proxy passes > - server extracts UUID and maps to TXN-NAME So my question is whether to have the server do it, or have the proxy do it. Basically, the server is responding with somebody the requestor already knows. So I wonder which approach is "best". It seems to be kinda six-of-one/half-dozen-of-another. I suspect the server just needs an if/else, so that might not be nearly the burden relative modifying the proxy to add that header. Cheers, -g
