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(a)gmail.com
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Asher Feldman <afeldman(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
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(a)wikimedia.org
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Diederik van Liere
<dvanliere(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
Thanks Ori, I was not aware of this
D
Sent from my iPhone
On 2013-02-02, at 16:55, Ori Livneh <ori(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l