incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] redirection of update services to www.openoffice.org
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:20:38 GMT
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Well if we can expect/induce reasonable client
> behavior bandwidth concerns will be minimal.
> We will obviously need to figure out how to
> point clients in need of an update to the mirrors
> in a way that's compatible with existing client
> code, but that's manageable I hope.
>
>
>
>
Yes...given what this does...not much bandwidth. It's the protocol itself
and the way it is (apparently) implemted in odler clients that's the
concern!

Still, I am very encouraged about MY recent testing with my 3.3 client.
But, I'm at a loss as to how to deal with the older clients...we can't
change the code now that's for sure.

I need to make a few more mods and engage a few others who know how to
change their local network settings to see how things go from here!


> >________________________________
> > From: Kevin Sisco <kevinsisco61784@gmail.com>
> >To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:10 PM
> >Subject: Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL] redirection of update services to
> www.openoffice.org
> >
> >I must inquire about bandwidth requirements.  Obviously, it is a
> >concern.  Just food for thought.
> >
> >
> >On 3/29/12, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <orwittmann@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 28.03.2012 18:43, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >>> Well I wouldn't say it like that Kay. The problem
> >>> with any update service is the sheer number of clients
> >>> out there configured to abuse it.  There are a number
> >>> of options available, but most of them revolve around
> >>> providing an Apache C module to at least cut down on
> >>> the redundant traffic before showing it to your script.
> >>>
> >>> Is it actually a cgi script at this point that you
> >>> are trying to service the traffic with, or just a static
> >>> file?  Right now our webserver is configured to disallow
> >>> any attempts to POST data to us, so none of yesterday's
> >>> traffic was handled by any of your work in this regard-
> >>> it was all interrupted by the server with a "Method Not
> >>> Allowed" 4xx response.
> >>>
> >>> I'd be willing to try experimenting again if in fact
> >>> you are trying to service that traffic with a static
> >>> file that naturally ignores POST data instead of with a
> >>> cgi script.  The point is to figure out how to see if
> >>>
> >>> those misconfigured clients will back-off if given
> >>> an expected response.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I am not sure about which clients you are talking about.
> >> If former OpenOffice.org instances are meant I can share here what I
> have
> >> learned during the integration of serf as the new HTTP/WebDAV client
> library
> >> in AOO:
> >> When OOo wants to load a resource (file or folder) via HTTP/HTTPS it
> sends a
> >> PROPFIND request in order to find out, if the corresponding server
> "talks"
> >> WebDAV. May be the request is sent several times in order to workaround
> an
> >> unreliable network. A HEAD request might follow. Then OOo sends the GET
> >> request
> >> (in case of a file) to load it.
> >> These HTTP requests should be observed on the server providing the
> update
> >> service when OOo automatically or the user manually triggers a "check
> for
> >> updates".
> >>
> >> Best regards, Oliver.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Women and cats will do as they please,
 and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea."
                                                                    --
Robert Heinlein

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message