incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <orwittm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [UPDATE SERVICE] dynamic approach [was: Re: [UPDATE SERVICE] activation of update service for OOo 3.1 and OOo 3.1.1]
Date Tue, 14 Aug 2012 19:09:29 GMT
Hi,

Am 14.08.2012 um 20:52 schrieb Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>:

> 
> On Aug 14, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 11:13 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 03/08/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I am planning to give a talk on ApacheCon EU about
>>>>>> the update function in AOO and the Update Service. In this talk I
will give
>>>>>> a deep insight in its purpose and functionality which should be enough
input
>>>>>> for a corresponding volunteer to create a "real" web service for
our Update
>>>>>> Service. ...
>>>>> The question is:  how dynamic does it need to be?  It is not like the
>>>>> upgrade options change minute by minute.  These change slowly, at the
>>>>> pace of our release cycle, so every few months.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, and traffic is a key factor here. With potentially hundreds of millions
of clients hitting the servers, the biggest problem is not re-implementing the update service
as a web service, but serving it efficiently. And indeed I agree that staticizing the results
somehow would be good to do, since we have a relatively low number of possible answers with
respect to the number of requests.
>>> 
>>> Oliver requested removal of update32 from DNS on INFRA-5112 and now Infra is
requesting PPMC agreement.
>>> 
>>> Is now a time to discuss cleaning up all of the staroffice urls here:
>>> 
>>> update.services               CNAME     sd-web4.staroffice.de.
>>> update23.services             CNAME     sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>>> update24.services             CNAME     sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>>> update30.services             CNAME     sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>>> update31.services             CNAME     sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>>> update32.services             CNAME     www.openoffice.org.
>>> update33.services             CNAME     sd-web2.staroffice.de.
>>> update34.services             CNAME     www.openoffice.org.
>>> update35.services             CNAME     www.openoffice.org.
>>> update36.services             CNAME     www.openoffice.org.
>>> update38.services             CNAME     www.openoffice.org.
>>> 
>>> update32 is the proposed change in the JIRA issue.
>>> 
>>> update33 is the added removal.
>>> 
>>> What about update, update23, update24, update30, update31?
>>> 
>>> Should we do anything now as well?
>>> 
>> 
>> I suppose returning errors from *.openoffice.org is no worse than
>> returning errors from *.staroffice.de.  And if we do that we can
>> handle these URL's more gracefully in the future if we want to.
> 
> It might be nicer to return a 404 rather than timing out on a non-responsive ip address.
> 
> Oliver or Kay will need to confirm what will happen.

I would like to see a 404 for all currently unused updateX*.services URLs.
The former OOo versions which would get in contact with these URLs should handle such replies.

Best regards, Oliver.



Mime
View raw message