incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
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 19:42:06 GMT

On Aug 14, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 14, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> The following are current in ooo-site/trunk/content/projects/.
>> 
>> update:
>> ProductUpdateService    aoo341
>> 
>> update30:
>> ProductUpdateService
>> 
>> update34:
>> ProductUpdateService
>> 
>> update35:
>> ProductUpdateService
>> 
>> update36:
>> ProductUpdateService
>> 
>> update38:
>> ProductUpdateService
>> 
>> (1) Are update/ProductUpdateSerice and update30/ProductUpdateService ready?
>> 
> 
> They can be created quickly, based on available time of volunteers.
> But if we have Infra now ready to act on the redirection now, let's
> take advantage of that now, while we have that opportunity.
> 
>> (2) Currently all 404s on openoffice.org go here:
>> 
>>   ErrorDocument 404 /docs/custom_404.html
>> 
>> Is that acceptable? Or must we use a real 404 response?
>> 
> 
> Please redirect them to where they would actually live if we wanted to
> go live with then. e.g., the appropriate directory under
> ooo-site/content/projects/updateXX
> 
> In other words, treat them analogously to how we treat the others.
> That way they will indeed give 404's now and then we can update then
> for real without requiring intervention from Infra.

These urls get rewritten by this default rule:

   # fallback for proj.openoffice.org/... to openoffice.org/projects/proj/...
   RewriteCond ${lowercase:%{HTTP_HOST}} ^(?!www)(\w+)(?:\.\w+)?\.openoffice\.org$
   RewriteRule ^(.*)$ ${lowercase:%{HTTP_HOST}}$1 [C]
   RewriteRule ^(\w+)(?:\.\w+)?\.openoffice\.org/(.*) http://www.openoffice.org/projects/$1/$2
[NE,L]

We should probably add:

<Directory /projects>
ErrorDocument 404 default
</Directory>

Correct me if I'm wrong but that should make anything in that tree return a real 404.

And overrides:

   ErrorDocument 404 /docs/custom_404.html


Regards,
Dave



> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Rob
> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message