-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 905
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
update(config): Improve http output, add compression and keep_alive #2974
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Samuel Gaist <samuel.gaist@idiap.ch>
Signed-off-by: Samuel Gaist <samuel.gaist@idiap.ch>
ef96640
to
36c7848
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you mean? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
LGTM label has been added. Git tree hash: 1c103b6386c1efb7bbb25b90049771303ae62101
|
/hold I think @sgaist is still looking into possibly adding batching 🙃 |
@incertum I am currently waiting on an answer with regard to the batching part which will likely require a bit more work and design discussions. What could be done is to split things and implement said batching in a follow up patch so the benefits of compression and keep alive are already made available. This would only require a bit of rewording of the pull request message. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/approve
/unhold
Yes let's split PRs!
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: FedeDP, incertum, sgaist The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Don't know if the batching will be really useful, very few targets accept that. On the other hands, having more control on the http output would be a really nice thing:
|
@Issif based on the current code of the http output, the following are already available:
When you say authentication, are you thinking about setting a username/password or a token in the authorization header or something more involved like oauth ? |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
Any specific area of the project related to this PR?
/area engine
What this PR does / why we need it:
This PR adds two new configuration options for the http output:
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #2955
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: