[GitHub] [trafficserver] bneradt commented on pull request #9155: More HTTP/2 local and server renaming

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

bneradt commented on PR #9155:
URL: https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/pull/9155#issuecomment-1284877127

   Thanks for the review.
   
   > I feel like local / remote is a more natural combination, but I'm not a best person to choose English words. I believe your choice.
   
   That's true. Often local and remote do go together. But I think in this case peer is better than remote for what these variables reference. The HTTP/2 RFC generally uses the term "peer" when referring to the other host:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9113.html
   
   The term "remote" is used in the RFC, but generally to qualify peer (i.e., it says "remote peer" sometimes), or in reference in a few places to the name of a state. But in general, when discussing the other host, it calls it a "peer". 
   
   Also, #9084 already started the trend of renaming the client to peer rather than remote. So if we did choose remote instead of peer, we would have to change those places too.
    
   > I approve this PR for now, but we have `remote_hpack_handle` in Http2ConnectionState. Please rename it as well if you think renaming it makes sense.
   
   Good catch. Let's rename that too.


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscribe@trafficserver.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org