Considering that the query component of a URI is meant to identify the resource whereas HTTP headers are meant to tell the server additional information about the request, I think a header approach is much more appropriate than a no-op query parameter.
If the X- is removed, I'd have no problem with the addition of these headers, but what is the advantage of having two over one. Wouldn't a header like: MobileFrontend: 1/2 a/b/s work just as fine? *--* *Tyler Romeo* Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 Major in Computer Science www.whizkidztech.com | [email protected] On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Asher Feldman <[email protected]>wrote: > Regarding varnish cacheability of mobile API requests with a logging query > param - it would probably be worth making frontend varnishes strip out all > occurrences of that query param and its value from their backend requests > so they're all the same to the caching instances. A generic param name that > can take any value would allow for adding as many extra log values as > needed, limited only by the uri log field length. > > &l=mft2&l=mfstable etc. > > So still an edge cache change but the result is more flexible > while avoiding changing the fixed field length log format across unrelated > systems like text squids or image caches. > > On Sunday, February 3, 2013, Asher Feldman wrote: > > > If you want to differentiate categories of API requests in logs, add > > descriptive noop query params to the requests. I.e &mfmode=2. Doing this > in > > request headers and altering edge config is unnecessary and a bad design > > pattern. On the analytics side, if parsing query params seems challenging > > vs. having a fixed field to parse, deal. > > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2013, David Schoonover wrote: > > > >> Huh! News to me as well. I definitely agree with that decision. Thanks, > >> Ori! > >> > >> I've already written the Varnish code for setting X-MF-Mode so it can be > >> captured by varnishncsa. Is there agreement to switch to Mobile-Mode, or > >> at > >> least, MF-Mode? > >> > >> Looking especially to hear from Arthur and Matt. > >> > >> -- > >> David Schoonover > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Diederik van Liere > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Ori, I was not aware of this > >> > D > >> > > >> > Sent from my iPhone > >> > > >> > On 2013-02-02, at 16:55, Ori Livneh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Saturday, February 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Platonides wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> I don't like it's cryptic nature. > >> > >> > >> > >> Someone looking at the headers sent to his browser would be very > >> > >> confused about what's the point of «X-MF-Mode: b». > >> > >> > >> > >> Instead something like this would be much more descriptive: > >> > >> X-Mobile-Mode: stable > >> > >> X-Mobile-Request: secondary > >> > >> > >> > >> But that also means sending more bytes through the wire :S > >> > > Well, you can (and should) drop the 'X-' :-) > >> > > > >> > > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648: Deprecating the "X-" Prefix > >> and > >> > Similar Constructs in Application Protocols > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Ori Livneh > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Wikitech-l mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
