2008/9/22 Alex Rousskov <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com>:
>
> It would help if there was a document describing what connection pinning
> is and what are the known pitfalls. Do we have such a document? Is RFC
> 4559 enough?
I'll take another read. I think we should look at documenting these
sorts of features somewhere else though.
> If not, Christos, can you write one and have Adrian and others
> contribute pitfalls? It does not have to be long -- just a few
> paragraphs describing the basics of the feature. We can add that
> description to code documentation too.
I'd be happy to help troll over the 2.X code and see what its doing.
Henrik and Steven know the code better than I do; I've just spent some
time figuring out how it interplays with load balancing to peers and
such.
> ICAP and eCAP do not care about HTTP connections or custom headers. Is
> connection pinning more than connection management via some custom
> headers?
Nope; it just changes the semantics a little and some code may assume
things work a certain way.
> Sine NTLM authentication forwarding appears to be a required feature for
> many and since connection pinning patch is not trivial (but is not huge
> either), I would rather see it added now (after the proper review
> process, of course). It could be the right icing on 3.1 cake for many
> users. I do realize that, like any 900-line patch, it may cause problems
> even if it is reviewed and tested.
*nodnod* I'm just making sure the reasons for pushing it through are
recorded somewhere during the process.
Adrian
Received on Sun Sep 21 2008 - 23:55:01 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Sep 22 2008 - 12:00:04 MDT