> On Mar 23, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Susan Hinrichs
> <shinr...@network-geographics.com> wrote:
>
> I don't have an issue with the re-arrangement. Such a re-arrangement will
> require plugins to be recompiled. Is that something we try to avoid until
> major releases?
Certainly can't break it within a major release. And we should only break
compatibility between majors if it's necessary and has significant benefits.
I.e don't break it "just because" :).
-- Leif
>
> Alternatively, we could insert additional pseudo enum's like we currently
> have for last to mark ranges of hooks.
>
>> On 3/23/2015 2:48 PM, Brian Geffon wrote:
>> Hi,
>> When looking at apidefs
>> (https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=trafficserver.git;a=blob;f=lib/ts/apidefs.h.in;h=329adf27f9d0fc3fc677c21d5be38e39456dab73;hb=HEAD#l291)
>> the SSL hooks appear to be at the end of the hook list. While this isn't a
>> huge problem, in some situations it's helpful to have the order the hooks
>> will be called in the same order in that list. For example, we like to do
>> things like curHook > HOOK_READ_RESPONSE_HEADERS, and currently that won't
>> be possible w/ the SSL hooks in this order.
>>
>> Does anyone have thoughts on moving these guys to before
>> READ_REQUEST_HEADERS since these ssl hooks will always happen before that
>> point? Does anyone have concerns around things breaking by making this
>> change?
>>
>> Brian
>
