Re: Store_url_rewrite 2.7 vs\to 3.head basic review

On 09/08/2012 06:24 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> (I will respond to the other emails also)
> A moment before I will get back to the 3.head I want to review what was
> done on 2.7 vs 3.head before even touching the code.
>
> summary:
>
> squid 2.7 store_url_rewrite makes use of
> mem_object->request->storeurl mainly as a null to verify that there
> wasn't any action.
> in all the cases of a test that storeurl is null another action was
> the choice.
> this avoids the need in any step to even access the original request
> url if not needed(avoiding harming the original request url) which
> leads to put code only on key points that needs access to the storeurl.

Are you saying that Squid2 uses mem_object->request->storeurl as a
boolean only?

It would be useful to know what those "actions" are. The question are:

  1a. Does Squid2 store rewritten URL in the cache?
  1b. If yes, why?

  2b. Why does Squid2 store original URL in the cache?

> - about the schema structure using "squid://" which is a bad
> idea to use since it's a http request.
> the basic usage should be to use an internal non public domain
> name for storeurl.

Do we have to change the original URL schema or domain name when
rewriting the URL for Store? If yes, why?

> - 302 loops. problem when a url is being rewritten and the same
> url rewrite result in the same url based on the credentials.
> case: http://example.com/?arg1=111&arg2=222&arg3=333
> s/(arg1\=[\d]+).*(arg2\=[\d]+)/http...$1&$2/g
> then the same url with another arg4=444 will result in the same
> rewritten url but the arg4 will result in a 302 reply and will
> be stored by the refresh patterns.
> this can result the the client requesting the same url in a loop.

If store URL rewriting causes a loop, does not that imply that the
rewriting rules are wrong? That is, they map URLs with semantically
different responses to the same URL, which breaks things. How can Squid
handle that automatically?

> there was a patch for that but it refers to all 302 replies and
> is not applied to the current 3 stable.(kind of tested)

What did the patch change?

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Sat Sep 08 2012 - 17:19:18 MDT