https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40679

--- Comment #8 from Roan Kattouw <[email protected]> 2012-10-02 03:04:01 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> I guess I'm the only one in favor of killing $wgServer altogether?
> 
> I think a situation in which you have two variables—$wgHTTPServer and
> $wgHTTPSServer—in which you explicitly define the secure and non-secure
> canonical URL versions would be better from a wiki administration perspective
> and a coding perspective. The protocol-relative magic feels very fragile to 
> me.
> 
Well, you're not the only one in favor of having better configurability for
what the HTTP and what the HTTPS URLs should be. Protocol-relative URLs are a
useful tool to increase cache effectiveness if the http and the https URLs
happen to be identical except for the 's', like on the post-secure.wm.o WMF
cluster and presumably in most sane 3rd-party setups that support both HTTP and
HTTPS. The way the code currently works that's also the *only* way you'll be
able to avoid random cache pollution; if we wanted to support the HTTP and
HTTPS URLs being different, work would have to be done to split the parser
cache based on secure-ness if the HTTP and HTTPS URLs differ. However, we need
to retain the ability to not split the cache and use protocol-relative URLs
instead, otherwise WMF's parser cache would double in size.

> I'm honestly not quite sure how disruptive trying to kill $wgServer would be,
> though.
Very. The reason things are the way they are now is precisely because when I
implemented this last year, I tried to make my changes minimally disruptive.
And they were quite disruptive still, it took me weeks and involved an
extensive tour of the skeletons in our closed :) . Messing around with this
more would probably take quite a lot of work to clean up all the various
assumptions surrounding $wgServer, wfExpandUrl(), Title::getFullURL(), etc.

The way I see it, the only gain to be had here would be that we would support
setups where HTTP and HTTPS have different URL patterns (like WMF's setup in
the secure.wm.o days). I don't know how common that is; I think most people
would want them to be the same when they set up SSL. The only reason that we
used a different domain name for HTTPS was because we were running a farm of
wikis and hadn't built the required infrastructure to do SSL for all of the
domains, with all the load balancing and caching stuff involved. The way we
"solved" that was by having one domain name that pointed to one,
non-load-balanced machine which bypassed the HTTP caches :D (this is why secure
was slow), obviously that wasn't scalable.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to