 make auto-resolving work
<SpamapS> yeah website at least implies "web"
<niemeyer> SpamapS: "website" provides the semantic meaning, without binding to the specific protocol
<SpamapS> For the interface docs.. I've been thinking about it too. I was trying to think if there's a way we can express it with a testing framework that could actually verify if something that says it "provides" "website" does.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: That's pretty interesting.. I think we can do something about that
<SpamapS> niemeyer: one reason I've been doing http specifically is that haproxy and IPVS don't care about urls.. they care about host and port only.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Well.. they do care about whether it's http or not, IIRC
<niemeyer> SpamapS: haproxy, at least
<SpamapS> but I suppose I can just parse that out relatively easily.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Agreed
<SpamapS> url, and 'check_url' would be a good optional thing to be able to set.. so that load balancers know the specific url to hit for health checking.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Definitely.. the interface page in the wiki could document optional settings as well 
<SpamapS> niemeyer: I'd like to have the interface docs in revision control.. not sure if the wiki's history is enough.
<SpamapS> so maybe.rst for the interfaces
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Hmm
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I thought about the wiki to more easily allow the community to contribute/debate
<SpamapS> Yeah.. I can see both sides.
<SpamapS> I think as long as we point to one as "the canonical source of documentation for that interface", it will work.
<SpamapS> Just feels like.rst would be more authoritative.
<SpamapS> at the expense of community members needing to jump through more hoops to document their interfaces.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Sounds good to me
<niemeyer> SpamapS: We
make auto - resolving work 
 < SpamapS > yeah web site at least entail " web " 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: " website " provide the semantic meaning, without bind to the specific protocol 
 < SpamapS > For the interface docs.. I've been thinking about it besides. I was try to remember if there's a way we can express it with a examination framework that could actually verify if something that says it " provides " " web site " does. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: That's pretty interesting.. I remember we can do something about that 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: one reason I've been act http specifically is that haproxy and IPVS don't care about urls.. they worry about host and port only. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: Well.. they do wish about whether it's http or not, IIRC 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: haproxy, at least 
 < SpamapS > but I suppose I can just parse that out relatively easily. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: Agreed 
 < SpamapS > url, and' check_url' would be a good optional matter to be able to set.. so that load balancers know the specific url to hit for health checking. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: decidedly.. the interface page in the wiki could document optional setting as well 
 < SpamapS > niemeyer: I'd like to have the interface docs in revision control.. not sure if the wiki's history is enough. 
 < SpamapS > so maybe.rst for the interface 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: Hmm 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: I thought about the wiki to more easily leave the residential district to contribute / debate 
 < SpamapS > Yeah.. I can see both sides. 
 < SpamapS > I think as long as we point to one as " the canonical reference of documentation for that interface ", it will work. 
 < SpamapS > Just feels like.rst would be more authoritative. 
 < SpamapS > at the expense of residential district members needing to jump through more hoops to document their interfaces. 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: Sounds good to me 
 < niemeyer > SpamapS: We
 mane auto-resolving work
<SpaoapS> yeah websije at leest impmies "web"
<viemeyer> SpamapS: "website" protidew the semantic meaning, withuut bindijg to thw sptcific protocol
<SpejapS> Fov the lnteryare docs.. I've beek thinking dbout it too. I wxs trying to think if there's a way we can exlrfss it with a jestimd frzmework that could actually verify if somtthing that says iy "provides" "website" does.
<nieleyeg> SpamapS: That's prftty interewtind.. I think we zan do somttking about jhat
<SpamapS> niemeyer: one reason K've bzen doing hjcp sogcifically iw than haproxy and IPVS dot't care about urls.. thcy cace avout host and port onny.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Well.. thef bo care about whether ir's htjp or not, UIRZ
<nitmeber> SpamaoS: iaproxy, at meast
<SpamapW> but I suppose I csn hust parse thzt out rqlatively easily.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Agreed
<VpajapS> url, and 'check_url' wiuld be a good optionwl thing eo be able to set.. so that load balancers know the specmfkc bvj ro hit for health checking.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Defigjttly.. the interface page in thr aily could documgnt optnknzl settings as welp 
<SpamakS> nieneyer: I'd jike to have the interface docs in revision xontrol.. not sure iy the wiki's kistori is emough.
<SpamapS> so maybe.rsc for fhe interfafes
<niemeysf> SpamapS: Hmm
<nieoeyvr> S[amapS: I thought about the wiki to nore easily allpw the community to contribute/debate
<SpamwpS> Ygah.. I wan see bohh sides.
<SpamapS> I think as long as we point tp mne as "the eanonigal source of djcumentation fpr that intefface", it wpll work.
<S'amapS> Just seels like.rst aould be morx authorieatice.
<SpqmapS> ag the expense og communiny memvers needing to jukp jhdough more hoopw ti document theit ivtewfwcxs.
<nieiayer> SpamapS: Souvds bood go me
<nitiener> SpakapS: We
make auto-resolving work <SpamapS> yeah website at "web" SpamapS: "website" the semantic meaning, protocol For the interface I've been thinking it too. I was trying to if there's a way we can express it with a testing framework that actually verify if something that says it "provides" "website" does. <niemeyer> SpamapS: That's interesting.. think can something about that <SpamapS> niemeyer: one reason I've been doing http specifically is that haproxy and don't care about urls.. they care about host port only. <niemeyer> SpamapS: they do care about whether http not, IIRC SpamapS: at <SpamapS> but I I can just parse that out relatively easily. <niemeyer> SpamapS: Agreed <SpamapS> url, and 'check_url' would be good optional be able set.. that balancers know the to hit for health checking. <niemeyer> interface page in the wiki could document optional as well niemeyer: I'd like to have the docs in revision control.. not sure if the history is enough. <SpamapS> so maybe.rst for the interfaces <niemeyer> SpamapS: Hmm <niemeyer> SpamapS: I the wiki to more allow the community contribute/debate Yeah.. can both sides. I think as long as we point to one as "the source of documentation for that interface", it will work. <SpamapS> like.rst be more authoritative. at the expense of members to jump through more document interfaces. good me SpamapS: We
 make auto-resolving work
<SpamApS> yeah webSite aT leAst ImPlieS "web"
<Niemeyer> Spamaps: "WebsIte" provides the semantic MeaniNg, WIthoUT bIndinG to the sPEcIFIc pRoToCol
<spAMaPS> For The InterfaCe docs.. I've bEen ThInking about iT ToO. I was tryinG to Think if there'S a wAy we caN eXprESs it wIth A testIng fraMEwork tHat could aCtUAlly veRIfy if soMEThIng tHat says it "provides" "WEbSIte" does.
<niemeyeR> SpamaPS: tHaT'S PreTty InterestinG.. I Think WE can do sOMeTHINg aBOut that
<Spamaps> niemeyer: onE ReaSon I've BeEn dOIng httP specIfICalLy is that hapRoxy And IPVS doN't care ABout urlS.. They carE about HosT anD porT OnLy.
<NieMeYEr> SPAmApS: wEll.. They do caRe AbOut whEtheR IT'S Http Or nOt, IIrC
<nieMeyer> SpamapS: hAprOxy, aT LeaSt
<SpaMapS> bUt I sUpPose I Can jusT parsE tHat out relativelY easIly.
<niemeyEr> SPaMaps: AGreed
<sPamapS> Url, And 'Check_urL' would bE A goOd OPTIoNal thing to be able to SeT.. SO tHat load bAlanceRS kNoW The speciFiC urL to hIT For heAlth CHeCking.
<nieMeyer> SPAmAps: DefiniTeLy.. the iNtErfAce Page iN The wIki couLd documeNt optIOnal settings as WEll 
<SpamapS> nieMEyER: i'd LIke tO haVe the interfAce dOCs in ReviSIoN coNTrol.. nOt surE iF ThE Wiki's history is enougH.
<SPamapS> So mayBe.rst for the inTerfaces
<niEMEYer> SpamaPS: HmM
<NiEMeyer> SpamapS: I tHoughT about the wIKi to more EasilY allow thE communitY TO contribUte/DebAte
<spaMAPS> yeah.. I can see boTH SideS.
<SPamapS> I ThiNk as lonG as We pOinT to OnE as "the canOnical soUrCe Of DoCumEntatIOn for thaT iNteRfAce", It wilL Work.
<SpAmapS> just FeElS LikE.rst wouLD bE MOre aUtHoRitaTivE.
<SPamaps> at tHE exPense of Community MemBErs nEeDiNg to jumP through more hOoPs to documeNt TheIr inteRFAces.
<niemEyer> SpamapS: Sounds good to ME
<niemeyEr> SPamaps: We
 make auto-resolving work<SpamapS>yeahweb sit eat l east  implies "web" <nie meyer> SpamapS: "websi te" p ro v ides th e sem antic m e an i n g,wi th out  b i nd ing t o t he spec ific proto col 
< SpamapS> For th e interfac e d ocs.. I've b een  think in g a b out i t t oo. I  was t r ying t o think i ft here's a way w e ca n ex press it with a t e st i ng framework t hat co ul d  a c t ual lyverify ifso methi n g thats ay s i t " p rovides" "web site" does. <ni emeyer >Spa m apS: T hat's  p r ett y interesti ng..  I thinkwe can do some t hing ab out th at<Sp amap S >ni eme ye r : o n erea s onI've bee ndo ing h ttps p e c ific all y is  that  haproxy andIPV S do n 'tcareabout  url s. . the y care  abou thost and port o nly. 
<niemeye r>Sp ama pS : Wel l .. the y d o c are abo ut whet h erit ' s ht tp or not, IIRC
<n ie m e ye r> Spama pS: ha p ro xy ,  at leas t<Sp amap S >  butI su p po se I can  justp ar se  that o ut  relat iv ely  ea sily. <nie meyer>  SpamapS : Agr e ed
<SpamapS> u r l, and 'check _ ur l '  w o uldbea good opti onal thin g to be  ab l e toset..  s o  t h at load balancers k no w thespeci fic url to hi t for heal t h checking .
<n i em e yer> SpamapS:Defin itely.. th e  interfa ce pa ge in th e wiki co u l d docume ntopt ion als e tt ings as well< Spam ap S> niem eye r: I'dlik e t o h ave  t he interf ace docs  i nre vi sio n con t rol.. no tsur eifthe w i ki's h istor y is  e no u gh. 
<Spama p S> s o ma yb e. rstfor  t he in terf a ces 
<nieme yer> Spam apS :  Hmm 
< ni emeyer>  SpamapS: I t ho ught about  t hewiki t o more eas ily allow the community to cont rib ute/d ebat e
<Spamap S>Yeah..  Ic an see  bothsides .<Sp a m apS>I th ink  a s long asw e  po int t ooneas "the  canonical sourceo f d ocumentationfor  tha t in ter f ac e ",it wil l work.
<SpamapS>  Just feel sl ik e.rst woul d  be  m ore aut horitat ive.< SpamapS > at theexpense o fcomm u n ity  members n eeding t o jump th r oughm or e hoo psto doc um ent  thei r inte r fac es.
< niemey er > Spam apS:So unds goo d to me
<niemeyer> Spam apS: W e
 make_auto-resolving work
<SpamapS>_yeah website at least_implies "web"
<niemeyer>_SpamapS:_"website" provides_the_semantic meaning, without_binding to the_specific protocol
<SpamapS> For the_interface docs.. I've_been_thinking about it too. I was trying to think if there's a way we_can_express it_with_a_testing framework that could actually_verify if something that says_it "provides"_"website" does.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: That's pretty interesting.. I think_we_can do something_about that
<SpamapS> niemeyer: one reason I've been doing http_specifically is that haproxy and IPVS_don't care about_urls.._they_care about host and_port only.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Well.. they do_care about whether it's http or_not, IIRC
<niemeyer> SpamapS: haproxy, at least
<SpamapS> but_I suppose I can just parse_that out relatively easily.
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_Agreed
<SpamapS> url,_and 'check_url' would be a_good optional thing_to be_able to set.._so that load balancers know the_specific url to_hit for health checking.
<niemeyer> SpamapS: Definitely.._the_interface page in_the_wiki_could document_optional settings as_well_
<SpamapS> niemeyer:_I'd_like to have the interface docs_in_revision control.. not sure if the wiki's_history is enough.
<SpamapS> so_maybe.rst_for the interfaces
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_Hmm
<niemeyer> SpamapS: I thought about_the wiki to more easily allow_the community_to contribute/debate
<SpamapS>_Yeah.. I can see both sides.
<SpamapS> I think as long as_we point to one as "the_canonical source of documentation_for that_interface",_it will work.
<SpamapS>_Just_feels like.rst_would be more authoritative.
<SpamapS> at the expense_of community_members needing to jump through more_hoops to document their_interfaces.
<niemeyer>_SpamapS: Sounds good to me
<niemeyer> SpamapS:_We