4 ms·
No, there was one other interesting point. Management wanted a "big splash" public rollout. Development teams wanted to avoid a "big bang" development effort.
by mcherm 13y ago
No, there was one other interesting point.
Management wanted a "big splash" public rollout. Development teams wanted to avoid a "big bang" development effort. They solved this by going live many months ahead of time but ONLY for clients using special headers. This allowed anyone to test the system while still not making it "public" until the day of the big reveal.
I had not previously heard of that particular technique (using special HTTP headers) and it's a useful one.
- jcampbell1 13y ago> I had not previously heard of that particular technique (using special HTTP headers) and it's a useful one. I am pretty sure by "special HTTP headers", they mean cookies.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- aroch 13y agoMore likely a useragent change
- Toucan 13y agoI wouldn't be surprised if they were just manually adding a header. I've seen it done like that before, using a browser extension to add a header and then mod_rewrite to apply a special set of rules if that exists.
- watson 13y agoThe article specifically mentions how this special HTTP header was implemented client side using a browser extension and how it's handled server side
- mcherm 13y agoI doubt it. I think they've actually just made up an HTTP header. (Cookies wouldn't work anyway... how would you place them? What about expiration? How would they interact with existing cookies? What if you have to clear your cookies while debugging? Whereas a custom header requires a browser plugin, but otherwise is innocuous.)