Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of dave2wave@comcast.net
 designates 76.96.27.227 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: [UPDATE SERVICE] dynamic approach [was: Re: [UPDATE SERVICE]
 activation of update service for OOo 3.1 and OOo 3.1.1]
From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <501EB7B5.60307@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:24:36 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CC6C1918-8CE4-48C0-A94A-BDD5667E2BB9@comcast.net>
References: <4FFED1DC.6030204@googlemail.com>
	<501B8074.6000200@googlemail.com>	<501B8301.3000300@googlemail.com>
	<501B85F8.1080805@googlemail.com>	<501BA434.8090708@googlemail.com>
 <CAP-ksogjj-A9R0GHMp3VJiQy2rgHKdpV-Q41Fs7QOqCBZGCb=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <501EB7B5.60307@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org


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.
>=20
> 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?

Regards,
Dave