[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user zwoop commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-220376284 . --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feat

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user oknet commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-219947645 review the code again, the variable name 'server_addr' confuse me. now, I'm using get_remote_addr() to replace server_addr and remote get_server_*() and get_client_

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user oknet commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-219936052 @SolidWallOfCode get_server_addr() and get_client_addr() is wrapper functions only. the wrapper function get_server_addr() is used to decide which variable

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user SolidWallOfCode commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-219751045 My point would be the need to carefully explain what the methods do in different contexts is the problem. "Local" and "remote" are always clear and need l

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user oknet commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-219642314 Currently, get_server_addr() and get_client_addr() implement as wrapper functions to call get_local_addr() and get_remote_addr() depend on netvc context. It is easy

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user oknet commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-219613493 @SolidWallOfCode Let me explain it. In the Client<-->ATS side, client_addr is Client IP Address and server_addr is ATS service IP Address. In the other side ( ATS <

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user zwoop commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-219515242 Would it be possible to squash some of this commits down ? Or if not, can you assure that all intermediary stages are functional / compiles ? --- If your project i

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user atsci commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-219453932 Can one of the admins verify this patch? Only approve PRs which have been reviewed. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

Github user SolidWallOfCode commented on the pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642#issuecomment-219447229 I would like to avoid "client_addr" and "server_addr" as methods because those terms are frequently ambiguous. I would much prefer "local" and "remote" in

[GitHub] trafficserver pull request: Proposal: NetVC Context

GitHub user oknet opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/642 Proposal: NetVC Context In the NetVConnection, we have get_local_addr() and get_remote_addr() method. Also have members local_addr, remote_addr and netvc->con.addr. Thus, we should