[API] Proposed removal from TSAPI

2018-05-10 Thread Susan Hinrichs
I just discovered the TS API void *TSHttpSsnConnectionGet(TSHttpSsn ssnp) This seems redundant with the TSVConnSSLConnectionGet and TSHttpSsnClientVConnGet functions. I propose removing it. If we need to keep this, we should document the API and change the signature to return TSSslConnection in

Re: [API] Proposed removal from TSAPI

2018-05-10 Thread Susan Hinrichs
Typo'd the name. Should be void *TSHttpSsnSSLConnectionGet(TSHttpSsn ssnp) On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Susan Hinrichs wrote: > I just discovered the TS API > > void *TSHttpSsnConnectionGet(TSHttpSsn ssnp) > > This seems redundant with the TSVConnSSLConnectionGet and > TSHttpSsnClientVConn

Re: [API] Proposed removal from TSAPI

2018-05-10 Thread Leif Hedstrom
> On May 10, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Susan Hinrichs wrote: > > Typo'd the name. Should be > > void *TSHttpSsnSSLConnectionGet(TSHttpSsn ssnp) > Yeh, we should nuke this in favor of the two finer granular APIs. +1 — Leif

Re: [API] Proposed removal from TSAPI

2018-05-10 Thread Bryan Call
+1 -Bryan > On May 10, 2018, at 2:05 PM, Susan Hinrichs wrote: > > I just discovered the TS API > > void *TSHttpSsnConnectionGet(TSHttpSsn ssnp) > > This seems redundant with the TSVConnSSLConnectionGet and > TSHttpSsnClientVConnGet functions. > > I propose removing it. > > If we need to ke

[API Change] Upgrade TSfread/TSfwrite to ssize_t

2018-05-10 Thread Chris Lemmons
The PR is here: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/3638 This is an API change, so I'm bringing it up. Previously, these functions were returning -1 in an unsigned type: size_t. They got these size_t values from regular integers, ensuring that not only was an oversized type misleading cal

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin promotions to stable

2018-05-10 Thread Chris Lemmons
cache_promote - +0, no opinion cachekey, +1 ts_lua, +1 (and rename to lua), +1 escalate, +0 rm epic, +0 On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Gancho Tenev wrote: > +1 > > >> On May 7, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Leif Hedstrom wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> as discussed today, we’d like to propose the following plu