On 05/08/2012 04:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> >> wrote: >>> On 05/08/2012 03:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >>>> One question: the ordering of PROPFIND and GET. Do you know if that is >>>> a requirement, or simply that you were preserving prior behavior? >>> >>> Upon reflection, it's probably not a hard requirement. In general, I >>> suppose it's easier (and more efficient) to cache properties and stream >>> contents while we drive an editor than the reverse, so that's probably why >>> that ordering was chosen prior. >>> >> Another option is to include properties in REPORT even in skelta-mode >> if they are small. With defining small something like 0.5-1k. > > Agreed. I had forgotten that we would still need these roundtrips to > get the properties. Maybe the REPORT request could at least indicate > which items have properties. It would be better for performance if > things like svn:eol-style and svn:mimetype were included in the > request so we then only had to go back to the server for custom props > (and we knew which files have them).
The REPORT request does include a <fetch-props/> type of indicator which says "there's something worth fetching here". I'm quite in favor of including, say, the "svn:" class of properties in the REPORT response proper. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
