httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bert Huijben" <b...@qqmail.nl>
Subject RE: Upgrade Summary
Date Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:30:42 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de]
> Sent: dinsdag 8 december 2015 11:07
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: Upgrade Summary
> 
> Trying to summarize the status of the discussion and where the issues are
> with the current Upgrade implementation.
> 
> Clarified:
> A. any 100 must be sent out *before* a 101 response
> B. request bodies are to be read in the original protocol, input filters
like
> chunk can be used, indeed are necessary, as if the request is being
> processed normally
> C. if a protocol supports upgrade on request bodies is up to the protocol
> implementation and needs to be checked in the "propose" phase
> 
> Open:
> 1. Protocols like Websocket need to take over the 101 sending themselves
in
> the "switch protocol" phase. (correct, Jacob?). Should we delegate the
> sending of the 101 to the protocol switch handler?

If possible I would recommend avoiding this. I think the original protocol
should setup the response and then the final protocol should somehow be able
to annotate this.

The problems we try to solve now originate from the problem of doing things
different in different protocol handlers, while in theory many upgrades are
very similar.

The TLS and H2C upgrades both begin in one form and end in a different form.
Websockets are kind of different in that they require a bad request response
in a specific case. I'm not sure in which protocol this error needs to be
send though.

In TLS and H2C further errors can always be produced in the new protocol, so
when the handshake succeeds things can just go on.

> 2. General handling of request bodies. Options:
>   a setaside in core of up to nnn bytes before switch invocation
>   b do nothing, let protocol switch handler care about it

For Subversion to be able to use upgrade we would need to support a small
body on a request (few hundred bytes. Content-Length header provided).

During our current (already optimized) handshake all requests have bodies,
and introducing an additional request just to upgrade will slow things down
quite measurable on operation like 'svn log', that are mostly bound by the
handshake time.

We can't just switch the handshake to be something else... our handshake was
built upon WEBDAV and DELTA/V. We added several headers to avoid many
requests we previously performed, but we can't move away from that initial
OPTIONS request without slowing down against all older servers.

	Bert



Mime
View raw message