Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] Modify key_value bucket. #1112

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

Pchelolo
Copy link
Contributor

@Pchelolo Pchelolo commented Apr 9, 2019

Open questions:

  • How to provide headers like vary that we want to store and return back by which are not valid HTTP request headers.
  • Where to do serialization/deserialization. If we make clients give us proper content-type, we will automatically parse the incoming data stream and will need to re-serialize it. So should we only support application/octet-stream as a content type and provide the actual content-type in x-rv-content-type header? if yes - we should return the data with the same header. Alternatively, we can add a patch to hyperswitch to NOT deserialize content and always store is as a Buffer and use proper client-provided content type. Doing so will basically make us reimplement kask here, which we did not want to do and might be to much work for an intermediate solution.
  • What to use a default etag? a hash of the content buffer seems like an appropriate solution.
  • How to prefix headers that need to be stored? Do header prefixing (that seem to be standard solution for existing http storage services (S3 for example) or put the content into an envelope containing headers and body? given that parsoid content is already an envelope containg multiple content parts, that might be anavoidable.

Change-Id: I7f698c8f6914027c89923c11123d0bd13286feb8
Change-Id: Idd1200f67699efa7441ef9d1170823f42f036871
Change-Id: I84ecedf77a57414b6d169a543c553045c4bd1f04
@Pchelolo Pchelolo changed the title Modify key_value bucket. [WIP] Modify key_value bucket. Apr 10, 2019
@Pchelolo
Copy link
Contributor Author

Superceeded by #1116

@Pchelolo Pchelolo closed this Apr 14, 2019
@Pchelolo Pchelolo deleted the key_value_new branch April 14, 2019 19:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants