I'll check out TSClientProtoStack. I think that would be similar to the
third option.
In the interest of getting Lev going, I will file a new bug and attach a
diff to implement TSVConnIsBlind. Even if we ultimately implement one
of the more general solutions, this will likely be a handy shor
Turns out others have been having problems here too. Yu Zou has a fix
for something in this area via bug TS-3140.
That fix addresses part of my issues, but I have a couple more resources
to free. I'll take over his bug and add my fixes to his.
On 1/15/2015 8:36 PM, Susan Hinrichs wrote:
Ha
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Susan Hinrichs
> wrote:
>
> Turns out others have been having problems here too. Yu Zou has a fix for
> something in this area via bug TS-3140.
>
> That fix addresses part of my issues, but I have a couple more resources to
> free. I'll take over his bug and
Yes, that looks like exactly the same issue.
On 1/16/2015 9:15 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
On Jan 16, 2015, at 6:49 AM, Susan Hinrichs
wrote:
Turns out others have been having problems here too. Yu Zou has a fix for
something in this area via bug TS-3140.
That fix addresses part of my issues,
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:01:43 -0600
Susan Hinrichs wrote:
> I've dug into Lev's observation on the Transaction Start hook and blind
> tunnels some more. I'd like to pursue two issues so I'm dividing his
> note into two.
>
> As the code currently stands, both TS_HTTP_TXN_START_HOOK and
> TS_HT
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:01:43 -0600
> Susan Hinrichs wrote:
>
>> I've dug into Lev's observation on the Transaction Start hook and blind
>> tunnels some more. I'd like to pursue two issues so I'm dividing his
>> note into two.
>>
>> As the
Friday, January 16, 2015, 12:17:35 PM, you wrote:
> Yeh +1 from me on not firing TXN_START unless it's really HTTP. Though, maybe
> the right approach is to keep the current event timing, but only fire
> TXN_START on HTTP ports?
We still want to fire that event on HTTP transactions on SSL ports
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:27:29 -0600
"Alan M. Carroll" wrote:
> Friday, January 16, 2015, 12:17:35 PM, you wrote:
>
> > Yeh +1 from me on not firing TXN_START unless it's really HTTP. Though,
> > maybe the right approach is to keep the current event timing, but only fire
> > TXN_START on HTTP po
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Alan M. Carroll
> wrote:
>
> Friday, January 16, 2015, 12:17:35 PM, you wrote:
>
>> Yeh +1 from me on not firing TXN_START unless it's really HTTP. Though,
>> maybe the right approach is to keep the current event timing, but only fire
>> TXN_START on HTTP port
Friday, January 16, 2015, 4:11:21 PM, you wrote:
> But eventually, the session is handled by a leaf in the acceptor tree. At
> that point, do we have enough information to know whether to invoke
> transaction hooks? Maybe blind tunneling is the exception here ...
No. For instance, if tr-pass is
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Alan M. Carroll
> wrote:
>
> Friday, January 16, 2015, 4:11:21 PM, you wrote:
>
>> But eventually, the session is handled by a leaf in the acceptor tree. At
>> that point, do we have enough information to know whether to invoke
>> transaction hooks? Maybe blind
Noticed this while tracking down redirect asserts. It is only used in
experimental.h. Not sure what the function is trying to achieve.
Any distress about cleaning it out of InkAPI.cc?
TSReturnCode TSHttpTxnRedirectRequest(TSHttpTxn txnp, TSMBuffer bufp,
TSMLoc url_loc)
12 matches
Mail list logo
