Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-08 Thread James Peach
> On Sep 8, 2016, at 7:55 AM, Sudheer Vinukonda > wrote: > > > >> On Sep 7, 2016, at 10:09 PM, James Peach wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 7, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:48 PM, James Peach wrote: > On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-08 Thread Alan Carroll
It's very different for HTTP/2 now because of TS-3612. HTTP/2 does not use PluginVC nor FetchSM. It is part of core and interacts directly with the HttpSM.

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-08 Thread Sudheer Vinukonda
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 10:09 PM, James Peach wrote: > > >> On Sep 7, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:48 PM, James Peach wrote: >>> >>> On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda wrote: I was replying to this - >>>

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-07 Thread James Peach
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 9:16 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda > wrote: > > > >> On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:48 PM, James Peach wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda >>> wrote: >>> >>> I was replying to this - >>> "I don’t think this is any different from allowing SPDY or HTTP

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-07 Thread Sudheer Vinukonda
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:48 PM, James Peach wrote: > > >> On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda >> wrote: >> >> I was replying to this - >> >>> "I don’t think this is any different from allowing SPDY or HTTP/2 to mark >>> their transactions as non-internal." >> >> Marking Spdy/H2

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-07 Thread James Peach
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 8:30 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda > wrote: > > I was replying to this - > >> "I don’t think this is any different from allowing SPDY or HTTP/2 to mark >> their transactions as non-internal." > > Marking Spdy/H2 as non-internal works because of the special handling done > via

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-07 Thread Sudheer Vinukonda
I was replying to this - > "I don’t think this is any different from allowing SPDY or HTTP/2 to mark > their transactions as non-internal." Marking Spdy/H2 as non-internal works because of the special handling done via FetchSM. With the proposed new API, you are intending to mark plugin genera

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-07 Thread James Peach
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 6:39 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda > wrote: > > Spdy/H2 are different - they also have a stream flag set which is handled > differently in FetchSM. This proposal doesn’t touch FetchSM, since the TSFetchUrl API is not extensible in any meaningful way (I’d argue it is totally brok

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-07 Thread Sudheer Vinukonda
Spdy/H2 are different - they also have a stream flag set which is handled differently in FetchSM. > On Sep 7, 2016, at 6:27 PM, James Peach wrote: > > >> On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda >> wrote: >> >> Can you describe the real purpose of allowing to change if a transaction i

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-07 Thread James Peach
> On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda > wrote: > > Can you describe the real purpose of allowing to change if a transaction is > external/internal - for example, is it merely for recording/metrics or is it > for a more significant functional purpose? It is both. If a request is log

Re: [API REVIEW] TSVConnInternalSet

2016-09-07 Thread Sudheer Vinukonda
Can you describe the real purpose of allowing to change if a transaction is external/internal - for example, is it merely for recording/metrics or is it for a more significant functional purpose? Atleast, in the current implementation, allowing arbitrary control of the internal state of a txn s