Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: RFC: Introducing two new HTTP headers to track mobile pageviews
the reason to use two fields instead of one makes it much easier to implement or performant? On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:08 AM, David Schoonover d...@wikimedia.org 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 d...@wikimedia.org On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Diederik van Liere dvanli...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Thanks Ori, I was not aware of this D Sent from my iPhone On 2013-02-02, at 16:55, Ori Livneh o...@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
Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: RFC: Introducing two new HTTP headers to track mobile pageviews
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 ___ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: RFC: Introducing two new HTTP headers to track mobile pageviews
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
Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: RFC: Introducing two new HTTP headers to track mobile pageviews
Thanks Ori, I was not aware of this D Sent from my iPhone On 2013-02-02, at 16:55, Ori Livneh o...@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
Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: RFC: Introducing two new HTTP headers to track mobile pageviews
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 d...@wikimedia.org On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Diederik van Liere dvanli...@wikimedia.orgwrote: Thanks Ori, I was not aware of this D Sent from my iPhone On 2013-02-02, at 16:55, Ori Livneh o...@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] Fwd: RFC: Introducing two new HTTP headers to track mobile pageviews
(Apologies for cross-posting)
Heya,
The mobile team needs accurate pageviews for the alpha and beta mobile
site. Currently, this information is only stored in a cookie, but we don't
want to go the route of starting to store this cookie because of cache
server performance, network performance and privacy policy issues. The
mobile team also needs to be able to diferentiate between initial and
secondary API requests - pages in the beta version of MobileFrontend are
dynamically loaded via the API, meaning that MobileFrontend will might make
multiple API requests to load sections of an article when they are toggled
open up by the user. At the moment, we have no way of diferentiating
between API requests to determine which one should count as a 'pageview'.
We propose that we set two additional custom HTTP headers - one to identify
alpha/beta/stable version of MobileFrontend, the other to be able to
diferentiate between initial and secondary API requests. This would make
logging the necessary information trivial, and we believe it would be
fairly lightweight to implement.
We propose the following two headers with their possible values:
X-MF-Mode: a/b/s (alpha/beta/stable)
X-MF-Req: 1/2 (primary/secondary)
X-MF-Mode would be determined by Varnish based off the existence of the
alpha/beta identifying cookies while X-MF-Req would be set by
MobileFrontend in the backend response.
These headers would only be set on the Varnish servers, on the Squids/Nginx
we will just set a dash ('-') in the log fields.
Questions:
1) Are there objections to the introduction of these two http headers?
2) We would like to aim for a late February deployment, is that an okay
period? (We will announce the real deployment date as well)
3) Are we missing anything important?
Thanks for your feedback!
Best
Arthur Diederik
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
