On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, David Schoonover wrote:

> That all sounds fine to me so long as we're all agreed.


Lol. RFC closed.


> --
> David Schoonover
> [email protected] <javascript:;>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Asher Feldman 
> <[email protected]<javascript:;>
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, David Schoonover wrote:
> >
> > > Just want to summarize and make sure I've got the right conclusions, as
> > > this thread has wandered a bit.
> > >
> > > *1. X-MF-Mode: Alpha/Beta Site Usage*
> > > *
> > > *
> > > We'll roll this into the X-CS header, which will now be KV-pairs (using
> > > normal URL encoding), and set by Varnish.
> >
> >
> > Nope. There will be a header denoting non-standard MobileFrontend views
> if
> > the mobile team wants to leave the caching situation as is. It will be a
> > response header set by mediawiki, not varnish. The header will have a
> > unique name, it will not share the name of the zero carrier header. The
> > udplog field that currently only ever contains carrier information on
> zero
> > requests will become a key value field. Udplog fields are not named, they
> > are positional.
> >
> >
> > >  This will avoid an explosion of
> > > cryptic headers for analytic purposes.
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > > - It seems there's some confusion around "bypassing Varnish". If I
> > > understand correctly, it's not that Varnish is ever bypassed, just that
> > the
> > > upstream response is not cached if cookies are present. Is that right?
> >
> >
> > "Bypasses varnish caching" != "bypassing varnish."  I don't see any use
> of
> > the later in this thread, but if there has been confusion, know that all
> > m.wikipedia.org requests are served via varnish.
> >
> >
> > > - Since we're repurposing X-CS, should we perhaps rename it to
> something
> > > more apt to address concerns about cryptic non-standard headers flying
> > > about?
> >
> >
> > Nope.. We're repurposing the fixed position udplog field, not the zero
> > carrier code header.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > *2. X-MF-Req: Primary vs Secondary API Requests*
> > >
> > > This header will be replaced with a query parameter set by the
> > client-side
> > > JS code making the request. Analytics will parse it out at processing
> > time
> > > and Do The Right Thing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kindly correct me if I've gotten anything wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Schoonover
> > > [email protected] <javascript:;>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Diederik van Liere
> > > <[email protected] <javascript:;>>wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Analytics folks, is this workable from your perspective?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, this works fine for us and it's also no problem to set
> multiple
> > > > key/value pairs in the http header that we are now using for the X-CS
> > > > header.
> > > > Diederik
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > > [email protected] <javascript:;>
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > > [email protected] <javascript:;>
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > [email protected] <javascript:;>
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected] <javascript:;>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to