--- On Tue, 5/1/10, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [BOSH] HTTP session IDs > To: "Bidirectional Streams Over Synchronous HTTP" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, 5 January, 2010, 9:50 PM > On 12/30/09 8:27 AM, Mridul > Muralidharan wrote: > > Sorry for the really really late response. We had > solved this by > > making the connection manager slightly more > intelligent and > > introducing inter CM routing for such packets. > > > > Note that since for security reasons we would not > prefer CM to be in > > http - cookie's are not going to be of much use > anyway. Ignoring that > > temporarily, most CM containers (tomcat, appserver,etc > - not the CM > > itself) already set some cookie or other. > > Not every CM is written on top of an app server. I was not specifying appserver actually - but to any container : that is all cases except where server author wrote the http server too as part of CM (which is not very common imo). > > > Additionally, most LB's > > loadbalance dont simply do loadbalancing based on > round robin but can > > be configured based on other criterion (cookie would > be one - if > > http, else IP, subnet, others etc). > > Right. > > > So probably requiring or worse mandating this for CM > would not be a > > nice idea. > > It would *never* be required, it would only be optional for > some > implementations/deployments. Then why do we need to specify it in bosh spec ? If I understood right, the intention is to reinforce what http spec declares w.r.t cookie handling ? That is just simple http behavior imo - which already elaborates on cookie handling for client, server; accept conditions, error paths, etc : and probably better left out of bosh ... my 2 cents. Regards, Mridul > > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/
