2008/6/19  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > * Why is the protocol version included in the
>> >  per-authority image configuration.  Would you please explain why you
>> >  chose to do it this way?
>>
>> Basically, I needed a place to store the protocol type and the
>> authority seemed the most logical since, at the moment, we don't have
>> mirrors and the setting is basically per-authority.
>
> What I was trying to ask was why is it necessary to store information
> about the server's protocol type.  This is something that I would expect
> to remain constant.  The server will get upgraded, and then you'll want
> to use the extended method.  Could we just try the enhanced version and
> fall back to standard when servers don't support it?

It isn't necessary, and yes, you are correct about the upgrade aspects.

I was just trying to prevent future operations from ever failing.

It looks like we need a temporary image configuration mechanism so
that we can store information such as protocol_type that doesn't
persist beyond the lifetime of the object.

I'll migrate what I have to that.

>> > * Are we guaranteed to get a 501 error when sending this path?  I would
>> >  much rather we get something like a 404, and then fall back to the old
>> >  protocol.  This is going to cause confusion when we introduce content
>>
>> The old depot server will return a 501 -- guaranteed. I obviously
>> can't change what it returns :-)
>>
>> >  mirrors, since they're actually not going to support catalog and
>> >  manifest operations at all.  In that case, it seems appropriate to
>> >  return a 501, since the method isn't supported on the server side at
>> >  all.  Whereas in this case the method is implemented, but you can't
>> >  find what was requested.
>>
>> The new depot server should return a 404 if you attempt a HEAD on a
>> manifest that doesn't exist.
>>
>> Can you clarify a bit?
>
> The rest of this discussion is effectively moot since old servers give
> us a 501 in this case.  I'll find some other way to resolve any problems
> that come up with content mirroring.

Well, I definitely don't want to make that more difficult. So, please
let me know if I can adjust things to better match the plans for
mirroring.

-- 
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to