W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: PATCH thoughts...

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:05:37 +0200
Message-ID: <409224F1.4010900@gmx.de>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Jamie Lokier wrote:

> I agree, there isn't a suitable "winner" at this time.
> 
> What does DAV + Delta-V propose at the moment?

Nothing.

 From a simple DAV p.o.v., simulating file i/o (skip, write, truncate) 
may be enough.

DeltaV probably would benefit more from a "true" patch format, such as 
gdiff.

Note that the former case seems to be a subset of the latter.

> The obvious format for PATCH is to pick the same format that can be
> _fetched_, CVS-style, to update a workspace.  Is that in Delta-V?

No. But it maybe in Subversion. Is a Subversion developer following this 
thread? Greg S.?

> Another capability to aim for is a patch format that is helpful for
> resolving fuzzy matches in a 3-way merge in the same way as CVS-style
> merging -- again, choose the same as Delta-V.

Yep, but that's something we don't want as REQUIRED support. Let's focus 
on the simple things first, and then let extensibility take care of the 
rest.

> Finally, it would be nice to have VCDIFF-style compression integrated,
> although compressing normal patches works ok so it's not that important.

If normal HTTP compression works fine, there's no reason to complicate 
the method.

Regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 30 April 2004 06:06:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:30 GMT