Considering that the query component of a URI is meant to identify the resource whereas HTTP headers are meant to tell the server additional information about the request, I think a header approach is much more appropriate than a no-op query parameter.
If the X- is removed, I'd have no problem with the addition of these headers, but what is the advantage of having two over one. Wouldn't a header like: MobileFrontend: 1/2 a/b/s work just as fine?
*--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo@gmail.com
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Asher Feldman afeldman@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Regarding varnish cacheability of mobile API requests with a logging query param - it would probably be worth making frontend varnishes strip out all occurrences of that query param and its value from their backend requests so they're all the same to the caching instances. A generic param name that can take any value would allow for adding as many extra log values as needed, limited only by the uri log field length.
&l=mft2&l=mfstable etc.
So still an edge cache change but the result is more flexible while avoiding changing the fixed field length log format across unrelated systems like text squids or image caches.
On Sunday, February 3, 2013, Asher Feldman wrote:
If you want to differentiate categories of API requests in logs, add descriptive noop query params to the requests. I.e &mfmode=2. Doing this
in
request headers and altering edge config is unnecessary and a bad design pattern. On the analytics side, if parsing query params seems challenging vs. having a fixed field to parse, deal.
On Sunday, February 3, 2013, David Schoonover wrote:
Huh! News to me as well. I definitely agree with that decision. Thanks, Ori!
I've already written the Varnish code for setting X-MF-Mode so it can be captured by varnishncsa. Is there agreement to switch to Mobile-Mode, or at least, MF-Mode?
Looking especially to hear from Arthur and Matt.
-- David Schoonover dsc@wikimedia.org
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Diederik van Liere dvanliere@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Thanks Ori, I was not aware of this D
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-02-02, at 16:55, Ori Livneh ori@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Platonides wrote:
I don't like it's cryptic nature.
Someone looking at the headers sent to his browser would be very confused about what's the point of «X-MF-Mode: b».
Instead something like this would be much more descriptive: X-Mobile-Mode: stable X-Mobile-Request: secondary
But that also means sending more bytes through the wire :S
Well, you can (and should) drop the 'X-' :-)
See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648: Deprecating the "X-" Prefix
and
Similar Constructs in Application Protocols
-- Ori Livneh
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l