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 Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:57:30 GMT

On Aug 14, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:

> 
> 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?

The DNS is now done. ooo-site may be changed as needed.

>>> 
>> 
>> 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.

Done and tested. [1] is updated.

Regards,
Dave

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Open+Infrastructure+Requests



> 
> And overrides:
> 
>   ErrorDocument 404 /docs/custom_404.html
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> -Rob
>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards, Oliver.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message