On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org> wrote: > >> If you really want to push, then "proxy-hates-chunks" could work well. > > Oh man. Not "proxy-blows-chunks"? (SCNR.)
LOL! Actually, after an offlist email with Daniel, I would like to "insist" on just calling it "busted-proxy". We don't need to be fine-grained on a config option that is only used for edge/broken cases. Consider the counter-example, where we have three proxy-related problems. We create *three* configuration options, document all three, and implement all three across ra_serf. And they are all edge cases. That is a lot of documentation and work for edge cases. And why do we need to solve proxy problem #2, and *avoid* hauling in solutions for #1 and #3? To optimize the user experience in a non-ideal situation? [by optimizing use of the (busted) proxy] I believe that the right answer is that we would take all three proxy issues and lump them all under "busted-proxy". Even if the target proxy doesn't suffer issue #3, it doesn't really hurt to throw in a solution for that, even though the user is only experiencing issue #1. And shoot... let's say that we *do* find a serious issue with a proxy, which we don't want to haul in when a user is only experiencing lack-of-chunked-requests. Then we just change busted-proxy from on/off to on/off/horribly-wrong. Or maybe *that* proxy problem gets its own config option. Unless/until, then I really think a single catch-all is the best approach. To be concrete, we've suggested sending a second OPTIONS request to detect lack of support for chunked requests. Two years from now, we discover another proxy problem and instruct the user to turn on busted-proxy. Is it really a hardship for *that* user to have a second OPTIONS in their startup logic? Nah. The user will work to fix the proxy issue, or lobby for its solution. While that happens, they will suffer a bit of degradation under the overall "busted-proxy" flag. This isn't an area that we need to partition and discretely solve. Especially since it "shouldn't" exist in the first place. Cheers, -g
