On Sunday, February 3, 2013, Tyler Romeo wrote: > Remind me again why a production setup is logging every header of every > request?
That's ludicrous. Please reread our udplog format documentation and this entire thread carefully, especially the first message before commenting any further. > Also, if you are logging every header, then the amount of data > added by a single extra header would be insignificant compared to the rest > of the request. > > *--* > *Tyler Romeo* > Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015 > Major in Computer Science > www.whizkidztech.com | [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Asher Feldman > <[email protected]<javascript:;> > >wrote: > > > That's not at all true in the real world. Look at the actual requests for > > google analytics on a high percentage of sites, etc. > > > > Setting new request headers for mobile that map to new inflexible fields > in > > the log stream that must be set on all non mobile requests ("\t-\t-") > > equals gigabytes of unnecessarily log data every day (that we want > > to save 100% of) for no good reason. Wanting to keep query params "pure" > > isn't a good reason. > > > > On Sunday, February 3, 2013, Tyler Romeo wrote: > > > > > 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] <javascript:;><javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Asher Feldman > > > <[email protected]<javascript:;> > > <javascript:;> > > > >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
