That was the original version of the PR, to just change the behavior of the existing effective URL get function. It just twisted in the wind for two months.
I think an aversion to long names in a C API is not realistic. When ya got no scoping or overloading, it's either long names or very unintuitive ones. On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:03 PM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > Sorry, premature send, my Mac sucks, fix it zwoop. > > > > I looked and the IETF specs and discussed it with Dave Thompson. It > seems > > that the only parts of the URL/URI that the Standards require to be case > > insensitive are the scheme and the host. Our plugin compares the URL > with > > a simple string compare. I think, for the purposes of that plugin, all > > other parts of the URL are case sensitive. I'd rather not have to change > > the plugin to have to deal with each component of the effective URL > > individually. Of course, this is probably just a fail safe, I would bet > > $10 that the widely used browsers normalize the scheme and host to > > lowercase anyway. > > > Seems we could normalize those two fields in the existing API then. If > that is an expected behavior (which I think both Walt and amc are > implying), then why have an option to open up confusion. This would be > inline with amc’s argument as well, that leaving normalization as an option > opens up a can of worm. So just always do the same thing, and everyone is > happy (i don’t think we need two APIs for this). > > Alternatively, we can change the existing API to take a normalization > option, and break compatibility. I much prefer either of these options than > adding this really convoluted API contraption. > > — Leif > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:18 PM Walt Karas <wka...@verizonmedia.com> > wrote: > > > >> I looked and the IETF specs and discussed it with Dave Thompson. It > seems > >> that the only parts of the URL/URI that the Standards requ > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:59 PM Bryan Call <bc...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> What are you matching against? Are you trying to match against the URL > >>> of a previous request? Why only normalize the scheme and host and not > the > >>> path, query parameters, or matrix parameters? > >>> > >>> I think the problem is you are not giving details and people are > guessing > >>> at what you are trying to accomplish. > >>> > >>> -Bryan > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Jun 11, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Walt Karas <wka...@verizonmedia.com > .INVALID> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> We (Verizon) want to deploy a plugin that matches on URL premap. With > >>> the > >>>> host and scheme normalized, we can do the matching using a simple > string > >>>> compare. I had put up a PR to simply change the behavior of > >>>> TSHttpTxnEffectiveUrlStringGet() but it was pocket vetoed by lack of > >>>> reviews. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:03 PM Sudheer Vinukonda > >>>> <sudheervinuko...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hmm..But, how do you define "correct" normalization? Wouldn't that be > >>> use > >>>>> case specific? Which is exactly why it feels like this shouldn't be > >>> done in > >>>>> the core? > >>>>> If the use case is a common one that benefits everyone, then there > >>> might > >>>>> still be value in supporting it. That's why, curious to understand > the > >>> use > >>>>> case. > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 11, 2019, 8:49:24 AM PDT, Alan Carroll > >>>>> <solidwallofc...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> The issue is, what is the correct normalization to perform? If that's > >>>>> non-trivial, there's an argument for embedding that in the API > rather > >>> than > >>>>> requiring every plugin to hand roll it. It would be the same reason > >>>>> `realpath` exists. > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >
