Re: Questions on activities

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm (geoffrey.clemm@rational.com)
Date: Wed, Apr 12 2000

  • Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Questions on activities"

    Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
    Message-Id: <200004121238.IAA12306@tantalum.atria.com>
    From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
    Subject: Re: Questions on activities
    
    
       From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
    
       <john> Another reason to not require web servers to maintain
       mappings between URLs and CM resources is to allow for scaling up
       access by providing more web servers as access points for the same
       CM repositories.  </john>
    
       <jra> What problem would this solve? Seem like if a CM repository
       has one WebDAV server that can access it, then any client can get
       to the resources managed by that repository. Implementation details
       for multiple threading and process load leveling should not appear
       in the protocol.  </jra>
    
    Scaling of a web site is done by creating a server farm, where each
    server can serve up the same data.  This means that the underlying
    repository must expose its shared data across all of these servers.
    These servers will definitively not call back to the web server to
    locate their data, but rather the web server will depend on the features
    of the underlying repository to ensure that it can safely forward the
    request to any of the servers on the server farm.
    
    Nobody is asking for implementation details to be exposed in the
    protocol, but we are insisting that the protocol be designed so that a
    scalable implementation is feasible.
    
    Cheers,
    Geoff