Yes.
The ExtraInfoReq already contains type and name (if needed).

ZhengSong Tu <tzssanggl...@gmail.com> 于2021年8月5日周四 上午9:36写道:
>
> One more question: How does APISIX know which ExtraInfo the Runner
> wants? Declare it in ExtraInfoReq?
>
> *ZhengSong Tu*
> My GitHub: https://github.com/tzssangglass <https://github.com/membphis>
> Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix
>
>
> Zexuan Luo <spacewan...@apache.org> 于2021年8月5日周四 上午9:01写道:
>
> > > 1. declare ExtraInfo in conf
> >
> > I used to solve it with this. But this way is too cumbersome. It let
> > me think about Java's check exception. You have to add a new exception
> > handler when the function you called has changed. There will be the
> > same with the ExtraInfo
> >
> > > Does this also include handling the body of the POST request? I have
> > encountered this problem before.
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > ZhengSong Tu <tzssanggl...@gmail.com> 于2021年8月4日周三 上午11:11写道:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > APISIX sends HTTPReqCallReq
> > > > while reply from Runner isn't HTTPReqCallResp:
> > > >
> > >     APISIX handle ExtraInfoReq
> > >
> > >
> > > I feel there is some ambiguity here.
> > > The reply from Runner to APISIX isn't HTTPReqCallResp = Runner wants
> > > ExtraInfo, so why not just tell APISIX that it wants ExtraInfo. Or a
> > > response that specifically identifies ExtraInfo.
> > >
> > > I have two suggestions:
> > >
> > >    1. declare ExtraInfo in conf (has this been discussed before? I can't
> > >    remember, sorry), for example:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > "ext-plugin-pre-req": {
> > >     "conf": [
> > >         {
> > >             "name":"foo",
> > >             "value":"bar",
> > >             "extra_info": {
> > >                              "ngx.var.request_start_time": "1454670920"
> > >                                  }
> > >         },
> > >     ]
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > 2. Before processing the HTTPReqCallResp, the Runner adds a
> > pre-processing
> > > step: checking the required ExtraInfo, and returns a Required ExtraInfo
> > > true/false response.(This is to add to the points I was wondering about)
> > >
> > > I prefer the first one. I think developers know exactly what they want
> > from
> > > the ExtraInfo when they write the Runner plugin, so the way it's declared
> > > is clearer.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In some situations, user may want to process request body that is greater
> > > > than 16M.
> > >
> > >
> > > Does this also include handling the body of the POST request? I have
> > > encountered this problem before.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 1 byte type + 3 byte zero + 4 byte length + body.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is an upgrade to the protocol between Runner and APISIX? Sounds good
> > > to me. This allows Runner to use some common TCP unpacking functions.
> > >
> > >
> > > *ZhengSong Tu*
> > > My GitHub: https://github.com/tzssangglass <https://github.com/membphis>
> > > Apache APISIX: https://github.com/apache/apisix
> > >
> > >
> > > Zexuan Luo <spacewan...@apache.org> 于2021年8月3日周二 下午8:54写道:
> > >
> > > > Sometimes we need to use some information that can't be predicted
> > > > before running the extern plugin. For example, access the
> > > > `ngx.var.request_start_time` in the extern plugin.
> > > >
> > > > Hence, we add a pair of messages: ExtraInfoReq & ExtraInfoResp.
> > > >
> > > > Now a request from APISIX to Plugin Runner will be like this:
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > APISIX sends HTTPReqCallReq
> > > > while reply from Runner isn't HTTPReqCallResp:
> > > >     APISIX handle ExtraInfoReq
> > > >     APISIX sends ExtraInfoResp
> > > > APISIX handle HTTPReqCallResp
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > The ExtraInfo schema is:
> > > >
> > > > ```
> > > > namespace A6.ExtraInfo;
> > > >
> > > > table Var {
> > > >     name:string;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > table ReqBody {
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > union Info {
> > > >     // Get the `ngx.var.name`
> > > >     Var,
> > > >     // Get the request body
> > > >     ReqBody,
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > table Req {
> > > >     info:Info;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > table Resp {
> > > >     result:[ubyte];
> > > > }
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In some situations, user may want to process request body that is
> > > > greater than 16M.
> > > > Although handling a large body in the extern plugin is discourage, we
> > > > still need to way to adapt it instead of just raise an error.
> > > >
> > > > To solve this problem, let's extend the current rpc header.
> > > >
> > > > Normally we have a header like this:
> > > >
> > > > 1 byte type + 3 byte length + body
> > > >
> > > > Since body can't be zero in all known types, we can introduce an
> > > > extension with zero length placeholder.
> > > >
> > > > Now we can accept such a header to represent a body larger than 16M:
> > > >
> > > > 1 byte type + 3 byte zero + 4 byte length + body.
> > > >
> > > > Body larger than 4GB is unsupported since we will buffer the whole
> > > > body both in APISIX and in Runner.
> > > >
> >

Reply via email to