Yes, Origin Server. :-)

TS_VCONN_CONNECTED_HOOK maybe more accurate than TS_VCONN_OPENED_HOOK for
"once a connection is established"

- Oknet

2017-11-15 23:08 GMT+08:00 Alan Carroll <solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid>:

> Ah, by "OS" you mean "Origin Server", not "Operating System".
>
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Chao Xu <ok...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > TS_VCONN_OPENED_HOOK for OS side and TS_VCONN_ACCEPTED_HOOK for client
> > side.
> >
> > - Oknet
> >
> > 2017-11-15 23:04 GMT+08:00 Alan Carroll <solidwallofc...@oath.com.
> > invalid>:
> >
> > > How are those different? In terms of names, if you want consistency
> then
> > > TS_NET_ACCEPT_HOOK might be the best choice, aligning with
> > > TS_EVENT_NET_ACCEPT which is the event that signals that action.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Chao Xu <ok...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi AMC,
> > > >
> > > > " We should rename TS_VCONN_PRE_ACCEPT_HOOK to TS_VCONN_START_HOOK. "
> > > >
> > > > IMO, TS_VCONN_OPENED_HOOK when the OS connection is established.
> > > > TS_VCONN_ACCEPTED_HOOK as a instead for TS_VCONN_PRE_ACCEPT_HOOK.
> > > >
> > > > - Oknet
> > > >
> > > > 2017-11-14 23:48 GMT+08:00 Dk Jack <dnj0...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > > > I concur with the idea that connection level APIs should be
> different
> > > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > HTTP txn or ssn level APIs. For my use case, I am saving attributes
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > connection
> > > > > level and accessing them during HTTP txn processing.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Alan Carroll <
> > > > > solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I thought we'd discussed this already, but I think having the
> same
> > > > index
> > > > > > for all three is a bad API design.  I think the use cases are
> > > generally
> > > > > > separate and conflating them effectively reduces the size of the
> > > > arrays.
> > > > > If
> > > > > > I could, I'd change the TXN and SSN args to use separate indices
> > and
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be happy to make a PR that does that. I suspect there is not even
> > one
> > > > > > plugin that depends on that behavior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Alan M. Carroll <
> > > > > > > a...@network-geographics.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This came up with issues #2380 and #2388 and PR #2783. I had
> > been
> > > > > > > waiting for some internal feedback on my proposal but since
> this
> > is
> > > > now
> > > > > > > active I am sending in my API proposal for attaching plugin
> data
> > to
> > > > > > > NetVConnections (TSVConn).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://solidwallofcode.github.io/api/TSVConnArgs.en.
> > > > > html#tsvconnargs
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some background on this proposal
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://solidwallofcode.github.io/vconn-args.en.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I redact my +1 :-).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems we used one “index” lookup / storage for TXN and SSNs.
> > Are
> > > > we
> > > > > > > sure we want a separate lookup function and table for the
> > TSVConn?
> > > > That
> > > > > > > seems inconsistent. I think if we’re going to do this, we
> should
> > > > break
> > > > > > > compatibility on the old SSN, and break that out of all of
> this.
> > > I.e.
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >          TSHttpSsnArgIndexReserve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >          TSHttpTxnArgIndexReserve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > etc. Otherwise, the proposal here seems very inconsistent with
> > the
> > > > > > > existing APIs, to the point of being confusing as hell. We
> should
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > change the new proposal to reuse the same index slots as
> previous
> > > > (they
> > > > > > > really are per Plugins anyways), or we should fix the old APIs
> > IMO.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > — Leif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to