On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Am 14.08.2012 um 20:52 schrieb Dave Fisher <[email protected]>: >> >>> >>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 03/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I am planning to give a talk on ApacheCon EU about >>>>>>>> the update function in AOO and the Update Service. In this talk I will >>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>> a deep insight in its purpose and functionality which should be enough >>>>>>>> input >>>>>>>> for a corresponding volunteer to create a "real" web service for our >>>>>>>> Update >>>>>>>> Service. ... >>>>>>> The question is: how dynamic does it need to be? It is not like the >>>>>>> upgrade options change minute by minute. These change slowly, at the >>>>>>> pace of our release cycle, so every few months. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, and traffic is a key factor here. With potentially hundreds of >>>>>> millions of clients hitting the servers, the biggest problem is not >>>>>> re-implementing the update service as a web service, but serving it >>>>>> efficiently. And indeed I agree that staticizing the results somehow >>>>>> would be good to do, since we have a relatively low number of possible >>>>>> answers with respect to the number of requests. >>>>> >>>>> Oliver requested removal of update32 from DNS on INFRA-5112 and now Infra >>>>> is requesting PPMC agreement. >>>>> >>>>> Is now a time to discuss cleaning up all of the staroffice urls here: >>>>> >>>>> update.services CNAME sd-web4.staroffice.de. >>>>> update23.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. >>>>> update24.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. >>>>> update30.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. >>>>> update31.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. >>>>> update32.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. >>>>> update33.services CNAME sd-web2.staroffice.de. >>>>> update34.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. >>>>> update35.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. >>>>> update36.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. >>>>> update38.services CNAME www.openoffice.org. >>>>> >>>>> update32 is the proposed change in the JIRA issue. >>>>> >>>>> update33 is the added removal. >>>>> >>>>> What about update, update23, update24, update30, update31? >>>>> >>>>> Should we do anything now as well? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I suppose returning errors from *.openoffice.org is no worse than >>>> returning errors from *.staroffice.de. And if we do that we can >>>> handle these URL's more gracefully in the future if we want to. >>> >>> It might be nicer to return a 404 rather than timing out on a >>> non-responsive ip address. >>> >>> Oliver or Kay will need to confirm what will happen. >> >> I would like to see a 404 for all currently unused updateX*.services URLs. >> The former OOo versions which would get in contact with these URLs should >> handle such replies. > > The following are current in ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/. > > update: > ProductUpdateService aoo341 > > update30: > ProductUpdateService > > update34: > ProductUpdateService > > update35: > ProductUpdateService > > update36: > ProductUpdateService > > update38: > ProductUpdateService > > (1) Are update/ProductUpdateSerice and update30/ProductUpdateService ready? >
They can be created quickly, based on available time of volunteers. But if we have Infra now ready to act on the redirection now, let's take advantage of that now, while we have that opportunity. > (2) Currently all 404s on openoffice.org go here: > > ErrorDocument 404 /docs/custom_404.html > > Is that acceptable? Or must we use a real 404 response? > Please redirect them to where they would actually live if we wanted to go live with then. e.g., the appropriate directory under ooo-site/content/projects/updateXX In other words, treat them analogously to how we treat the others. That way they will indeed give 404's now and then we can update then for real without requiring intervention from Infra. Thanks, -Rob > Regards, > Dave > >> >> Best regards, Oliver. >> >> >
