Since the Cookie Jar functionality is new to 2.0 and 2.0 is not yet released, why don't we just remove the `ResumeSession` method all together and eliminate the dependency? Otherwise we are deprecating something that we never formally released.
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Robert Butts <robert.o.bu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding `TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license issue`: > > It looks like the persistent cookie jar is only needed by Traffic Ops > Client `ResumeSession(toURL string, insecure bool) (*Session, error)`. > Nothing in Traffic Control uses `ResumeSession`, and I doubt anyone else is > using it. Because it returns an error, and persisted cookies have > lifetimes, any current users already must handle errors from persisted > cookies being expired. Thus, we can change it to always return an error > with only degraded performance (and not much, login is cheap), without loss > of functionality. > > To fix TC-119, I propose we document `ResumeSession` as deprecated, and > change it to always return an error, which lets us remove the dependency, > without the development cost of writing our own persistent cookie store > that no one is using. > > Any objections? > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <mitchell...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > These all got fixed and backported to 2.0: > > > > TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” > > TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig > > TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow > > > > So Jan and Dave just need to close the issues. > > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Jeffrey Martin <martin.jef...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Eric, > > > I was going to address the immediate Postinstall issues TC-185. I am > way > > > late on this. I created a fork yesterday, need to run a couple of tests > > and > > > then I can push to this fork. > > > Jeff Martin > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < > > > efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > We have some release blockers for 2.0. Specifically: > > > > > > > > TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license issue > > > > We cannot ship with Category-X LGPL software, so I’m waiting for > > this > > > > to be resolved before cutting a release branch > > > > "TC-185 post install doesn’t run due to missing perl module” > > > > We shouldn’t ship a release in which the install process is > broken > > in > > > > this way. > > > > *There’s no assignee yet for this, any volunteers?* > > > > > > > > I think if we can get those two taken care of we can cut an RC0 later > > > this > > > > week. > > > > > > > > Major bugs we will ship with (unless someone objects): > > > > TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” > > > > TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig > > > > TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow > > > > > > > > —Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Good question. I would also like to see us try to get some release > > > > > candidates out for 2.0. I am pretty sure the actual install and > > > > > postinstall need work. There are also a couple of issue that are > > still > > > > > assigned to 2.0 and unresolved: > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC/fixforversion/ > > > > 12338562/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects- > > > > plugin:version-summary-panel > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Jan van Doorn <j...@knutsel.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> When are we planning to release 2.0? We at Comcast are running > what > > we > > > > >> call 2.0…. So we are +1, I am pretty sure. > > > > >> > > > > >> Eric: are you waiting for something? Which cats need herding? > > > > >> > > > > >> Rgds, > > > > >> JvD > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
