Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.52 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=bn+8PxMgCh2oCrcUtLJN1Zp2y5UkQTMp21HsoUdQ4ZhnRni6an2HAK//Hl3Y6cBjA9
         PwqUPrPHo3qRFsVAm+52c6LDMWXgCfHhHS/MKy3QTiNkRSybCK8aTjPXYTWWUk8NtHFF
         z8bu8D43+iBBjTYKBnm++JhhymLWwe/CtaIjY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiny1nqGXTndRj77SgROW5auEtmEgwn1sWNmfyno@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin+BH6SDr0d2uNTm+MeXAg0GZi+Np2GKm4HhKFm@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTimhHocN6x5vyiSkOKbZHkeCd5RzYmpqfxg=ABHH@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTin8XwbV_h25pFhEgXvb3LCdirkNsc3VXJxDKYqv@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTiny1nqGXTndRj77SgROW5auEtmEgwn1sWNmfyno@mail.gmail.com>
From: Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:49:40 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikLtQAJ3RduWOMVcLeGJAX1up_yFnw9gqRT+nYN@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New Externals: Implemented with tests
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>> Most odd. Individual tests are run in independent processes so the
>> scope of interaction should be confined to a single *.t file. 170 is
>> pretty tiny in what it does. Once it gets to test 19, the remaining
>> tests are all asserts on a record. Let me know if you find anything
>> else.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Randall Leeds <randall.leeds@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>> Make check hangs at 19/? in 170-os-daemons.t for me. Running it
>>> individually worked.
>>> Could be some conflict with an early test? Seems strange. No time to
>>> investigate now.
>>>
>>> Thanks for this awesome work, Paul.
>>>
>>> -Randall
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 15:43, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I've gone and implemented the two features discussed in [1] with the
>>>> goal of using them to replace the current _externals API. The code is
>>>> up at [2]. I'd like to get a couple people to build and run the tests
>>>> (./bootstrap && ./configure && make dev && make check) to make sure
>>>> everything is sane. Let me know if you have any comments or
>>>> suggestions. If a couple people report back with successful test runs
>>>> I'll probably push this to trunk in the next couple days barring
>>>> someone raising a serious objection.
>>>>
>>>> There's also a blog post at [3] that describes the current situation
>>>> with words and stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Davis
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201009.mbox/%=
3CAANLkTinv+-eqqraCjajVxzXA=3DsoyCo_Pk1cs8MMCVXHT@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>> [2] http://github.com/davisp/couchdb/tree/new_externals
>>>> [3] http://davispj.com/2010/09/26/new-couchdb-externals-api.html
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Heh looks like my old proxy handler. Really like the idea. Reading the
> code I see you're not rewriting the Location header =A0when you send the
> response neither cleaning the Host header is there any reason of this
> ? I saw lot of problem due to this especially with javascript code. I
> may have a patch for that.
>
> About removing _externals, I'm not sure. Maybe keeping old one
> available or better if possible reusing your new os process handling .
> One thing I like with using io is that you don't need http semantic
> parsing, just a json parser which ease some codes. I can do a script
> in sh . Also less latency sometimes.
>
> make check is ok on my mac. I will do more test during the day.
>
> - beno=EEt
>

I'm not going to delete the current _externals implementation right
away. I would plan on keeping it for at least one minor release to
make sure that people have time to test and switch to the new
protocol. For people that have a good reason to keep using the stdio
protocol I plan on writing a shim that mimics the current API as close
as possible so that we don't lose any functionality.

I'm not entirely sure about rewriting headers. For the most part I
wanted to make sure that I wasn't modifying headers in anyway. If
there's a specific set of headers that need to be handled then we can
take a look at adding that in.

HTH,
Paul Davis