On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 10:35:59AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 07:48:25PM +0000, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:00:27PM +0300, Maxim Dounin wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 04:52:59PM +0000, Alessandro Ghedini wrote: > > > > > > > # HG changeset patch > > > > # User Alessandro Ghedini <alessan...@ghedini.me> > > > > # Date 1518108716 0 > > > > # Thu Feb 08 16:51:56 2018 +0000 > > > > # Branch expose-push > > > > # Node ID 1bb98b06d5536dfc80a407aabd8d06f9309f8df6 > > > > # Parent a49af443656f2b65ca5de9d8cad5594f44e18ff7 > > > > HTTP/2: expose function to push single resource to modules. > > > > > > > > This makes it possible for 3rd party modules to implement alternative > > > > methods for deciding which resources to push to clients on a per-request > > > > basis (e.g. by parsing HTML from the response body, by using a custom > > > > Link header parser, ...). > > > > > > > > No functional changes. > > > > > > Not sure this is a good idea. > > > > > > You may consider exposing a variable to be used in http2_push > > > instead. > > > > Right, the problem is that as far as I can tell http2_push only supports a > > single resource, even when a variable is used, so it wouldn't be possible to > > push multiple resources without specifying multiple http2_push directives, > > each with its own variable, and even then you'd only have a fixed number of > > resources that can be pushed, which wouldn't work well when the number of > > resources changes depending on each request/response. > > > > So in the end exposing the internal functions to modules seemed better than > > just trying to make http2_push support multiple resources per directive, > > which would add complexity to NGINX itself rather than the external modules > > (though I can do that if you think it would be a better solution). > > We've also considered adding support for the X-Accel-Push header, but > decided not to implement it at this time. If implemented, there could > be multiple X-Accel-Push headers in the proxied response.
That might work for us, but it's a somewhat awkward interface to use from inside a module, so I'd still prefer something more direct, and as I said, exposing the function to modules seemed the least invasive change to NGINX. Could you please expand a bit on why you think this might be a bad idea? In any case I can look into implementing X-Accel-Push support if you don't plan on doing it yourself. Cheers _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list nginx-devel@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel