On 5/23/12 10:17 AM, James Peach wrote:
On 23/05/2012, at 8:55 AM, Leif Hedstrom wrote:
On 5/22/12 9:39 PM, James Peach wrote:
On 11/05/2012, at 10:21 AM, James Peach wrote:
I thought a bit more about how the remap and full APIs can be supported.
Currently the remap plugin looks for global functions called 'init' and 'remap'
respectively.
We don't really need 'init' because you can just run code at global scope when
the source file is loaded; so 'init' can go away. I think that the global
'remap' function can go away too in favour of explicitly registering a remap
callback, eg.
TS.remap(function(request) {
-- do stuff here
})
This will match the hook function that I'm thinking of, eg:
TS.hook(TS.HttpReadRequestHeader, function(foo1, foo2) {
-- do stuff here
})
+1.
Is there a reason not to use the same naming conventions as we already have
in<ts/ts.h>? So e.g. instead we'd have TS.HTTP_READ_REQUEST_HDR_HOOK (I
ditched the TS_ prefix intentionally, since TS. sort of becomes our prefix).
That seemed a bit ugly compared to the Lua conventions I have seen. Not that
I've seen all that many :)
Also, perhaps we should be a bit more "explicit" on the method names for adding
a hook remap? E.g.
TS.HttpHookAdd()
TS.HttpSsnHookAdd()
TS.HttpTxnHookAdd()
I think that TSHttpTxnHookAdd() and TSHttpSsnHookAdd() might end up being a
member functions. But I agree that a more explicit name is better.
Actually we could go further and break out the hooks into discrete functions,
eg:
TS.HttpReadRequestHeader(function(foo1, foo2)
-- do stuff
end)
Yeah, seems reasonable. And we'd have txn:HttpSendResponseHeader(function(...)).
-- Leif
