Re: Default performance of ‘lp:foo’ URLs

[Martin Pool]

2009/12/1 Robert Collins <robert.collins at canonical.com>:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 12:06 +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
>> 2009/12/1 Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com>:
>> > Jonathan Lange wrote:
>> >> However, if anyone feels strongly enough about this to provide some
>> >> patches for this, I'd be happy to help them.
>> >
>> > I think we should implement bzr+http support for code hosting.  bzr will
>> > automatically detect bzr+http support at http URLs, so we won't have to
>> > change the lookup mechanism, and http will get through more firewalls
>> > than bzr protocol.  It also avoids increasing the number of protocol
>> > options we provide to users.
>>
>> On the other hand, it's more likely to be messed with by firewalls (as
>> opposed to just failing cleanly), and while there's less startup cost
>> there may be more per-request cost, because of http post overhead.
>> (Facts needed.)
>
> What is 'it' in the paragraph above? If you mean bzr+http, it should be
> less problematic than just http as it has no range requests and POST is
> pretty bog standard for web sites.

Yes, bzr+http.  But web proxies do the strangest things; I'm sure
there are at least some out there that will cause strangeness with the
POST request.  Perhaps less than with nosmart http.

> That said, loggerhead already supports bzr+http, so it is roughly 'just
> pass .bzr/smart to loggerhead' to get it enabled on Launchpad.

That would be interesting.

-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>