But isn't an example using kruft also kruft? I think the only scenario for this is you hook a continuation globally on SSN_START. You poke and prod the particular session and decide there is a reason to sett hooks for each transaction in the session. The alternative is the have a global hook for TXN_START. Looking at the two examples, the handling code for SSN_START unconditionally adds the TXN_START hook. So they seem to be pointlessly added complexity.
traffic_dump, in its SSN_START global hook, does some error checking before setting a hook for all transactions in the session. But it's not clear that's a big improvement over doing the checks in a global TXN_START hook. Seems like this is kruft if we can't think of a clear example where it's crucial. On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 5:11 PM Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@verizonmedia.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > Should we deprecate this API function? > > > > The only core plugin that uses it is traffic_dump (experimental). I > don't > > see it used anywhere in VzM internal plugins. Anyone using it in their > > internal plugins? (Zwoop of course can't say without being disappeared > to > > a blacksite, which actually would probably be nice, in a warm climate > with > > good beaches and drinks with little umbrellas in them.) > > It seems this is somewhere between a global hook and a remap / txn hook? > I.e. it’s not quite global, but applies to every transaction on this > session? > > That seems potentially useful, but I don’t know of any actual usage > either. I did notice there’s one example plugin using it as well. > > — Leif > > > > > I'm trying to muck around in the CPPAPI again. The existence of this > call > > implies a need for a new SessionPlugin type, which I fear would just be > > unused kruft. > >
