[PATCH] httprepo: long arguments support (issue2126)
mpm at selenic.com
Sun Mar 27 10:13:31 CDT 2011
On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 17:22 +0800, Steven Brown wrote:
> On 22 March 2011 04:04, Peter Arrenbrecht <peter.arrenbrecht at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan at ochtman.nl> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 16:27, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> >>> One of the reasons we were focusing on stashing stuff in headers is that
> >>> some folks might be relying on non-push requests being GETs in their web
> >>> server access rules. I'm not sure if this is a real problem, though.
> >>> Obviously, a POST approach is a lot cleaner.
> >> Meh, I don't like it. I guess our protocol is already more RPC-like
> >> than REST-like, but I would rather strive to keep idempotent requests
> >> as GET and use POST only for the unbundle command.
> > For caching and such? Would be a reason to teach Hg to use the POST
> > variant only for large requests. We could see if the new discovery can
> > work sufficiently well with request sizes that fit into GETs (for
> > repos with reasonable numbers of heads).
> > -parren
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mercurial-devel mailing list
> > Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
> > http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
> Fine by me, as long as we choose a fairly small maximum URL length
> (1K?) to provide compatibility with as many web servers as possible.
I don't like this approach either. It's likely to create some very weird
and hard to debug support questions.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
More information about the Mercurial-devel