Re: [WIP PATCH 00/14] Protocol v2 patches

From: David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com>
Date: May 25, 2016, 19:31 UTC
Message-ID: <1464204699.24478.144.camel@twopensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqfut6150a.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 09:23 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> writes:
> 
> > I was looking at this again today, and noticed that it doesn't
> > really
> > address the HTTP case.
> > 
> > The central problem is that protocol v2 goes like this:
> > server: I have capabilities w,x,y, and z
> > client: I want capabilities x and z.
> > 
> > But HTTP goes like this:
> > client: [request]
> > server: [response]
> 
> I wonder if that can be solved by speculative request?
> 
> Let the connection initiator say "If you can do x and z, please do
> so", and allow the responder to say either "OK, I can do x and z; by
> the way the full capabilites I support are w, x, y and z", or
> "Sorry, can't do that; I have capabilities w, x, and y".

That protocol is somewhat more complicated. And it's different than the v2 protocol for the other transports (unless you are thinking that we should change those too?). It's actually a tiny bit like what I originally proposed for HTTP.

It sounds OK to me, but I want to know what others think before I start implementing.