feat: Promote rpxy-lib/sticky-cookie to top-level feature and fix compile warnings when disabled
#213
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
.. and fix compile warnings when disabled
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I (feel I) don't need the sticky-cookie feature, but it wasn't available as a feature in rpxy-bin.. so I added a
sticky-cookiefeature and made it propagate the feature flag to rpxy-lib. I also added it to the default set of features. I then disabled the feature and tried compiling the code. I made necessary fixes to get rid of all warnings I encountered, but didn't commit actually disabling the feature.I don't know if something will break if I don't have sticky cookies, but so far everything has worked fine. I don't use load balancing features, so I only ever have exactly one upstream configured per reverse_proxy configuration.
So I don't know if you actually want to promote the sticky-cookies as a top-level feature you can disable. I could understand for example if extra code would be required to verify that exactly one upstream is configured in case it is disabled. If it's easy to do I can try to fix it.
Nevertheless I throw stuff here that I implement and think might be remotely interesting to somebody. I don't mind if you don't want it merged. I'll keep using it :)