On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@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. > Regards, > Dave >
