Hi AMC, " We should rename TS_VCONN_PRE_ACCEPT_HOOK to TS_VCONN_START_HOOK. "
IMO, TS_VCONN_OPENED_HOOK when the OS connection is established. TS_VCONN_ACCEPTED_HOOK as a instead for TS_VCONN_PRE_ACCEPT_HOOK. - Oknet 2017-11-14 23:48 GMT+08:00 Dk Jack <dnj0...@gmail.com>: > I concur with the idea that connection level APIs should be different from > the > HTTP txn or ssn level APIs. For my use case, I am saving attributes at the > connection > level and accessing them during HTTP txn processing. > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Alan Carroll < > solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > > > I thought we'd discussed this already, but I think having the same index > > for all three is a bad API design. I think the use cases are generally > > separate and conflating them effectively reduces the size of the arrays. > If > > I could, I'd change the TXN and SSN args to use separate indices and > would > > be happy to make a PR that does that. I suspect there is not even one > > plugin that depends on that behavior. > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Alan M. Carroll < > > > a...@network-geographics.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > This came up with issues #2380 and #2388 and PR #2783. I had been > > > waiting for some internal feedback on my proposal but since this is now > > > active I am sending in my API proposal for attaching plugin data to > > > NetVConnections (TSVConn). > > > > > > > > https://solidwallofcode.github.io/api/TSVConnArgs.en. > html#tsvconnargs > > > > > > > > Some background on this proposal > > > > > > > > https://solidwallofcode.github.io/vconn-args.en.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > I redact my +1 :-). > > > > > > It seems we used one “index” lookup / storage for TXN and SSNs. Are we > > > sure we want a separate lookup function and table for the TSVConn? That > > > seems inconsistent. I think if we’re going to do this, we should break > > > compatibility on the old SSN, and break that out of all of this. I.e. > > make > > > > > > TSHttpSsnArgIndexReserve > > > > > > and > > > > > > TSHttpTxnArgIndexReserve > > > > > > > > > etc. Otherwise, the proposal here seems very inconsistent with the > > > existing APIs, to the point of being confusing as hell. We should > either > > > change the new proposal to reuse the same index slots as previous (they > > > really are per Plugins anyways), or we should fix the old APIs IMO. > > > > > > — Leif > > > > > > > > >
