On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:03:30 +0200 Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Hi Thierry, > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 01:30:23PM +0200, Thierry FOURNIER wrote: > > Ok. After brainstorm, I think that the it will be netter to keep the > > current behaviour to avoid breaking existing Lua implementations. > > > > Adding other entries with prefix "@f:" and "@b:" in the same list that > > the existing will disturb existing Lua which browse the lists. > > Returning a list (point 1 & 2) also break it. > > > > I think that the most reliable way is adding anoter tree. We keep the > > "proxies" tree base with existing, and we add two trees "frontends" and > > "backends" which contains respecticely the list of frontends and > > backends. > > Initially I wasn't much fond of this one but after some thinking I > convinced myself that it's probably the best solution. In fact you > never need to dereference a proxy by its name, unless : > - you know its type (eg: for use_backend or to list servers) > - you want to reference its table, which is already forbidden in > duplicate names. > > So in the end, being able to spot a proxy by its type+name, or being > able to lookup its name regardless of the type in case of a table seems > the best solution. Hence frontends+backends+proxies. an other case pop in my mind: with this solution, the "listen" proxies will be declared in both lists. I think that it is the expected behaviour, but I have some doubt about the usage. I can add a "listens" list. Thierry > > > Or another tree called "all_proxies" which contains names and a list of > > frontend/backend with the same name. > > It would add more confusion. > > > > >> Also, apply the same logic to the 'Listener' and 'Server' classes. > > > > > > > > These ones do not support duplicate names so we should not need to > > > > impact > > > > them. > > > > > > This is just for convenience and uniformity, Proxy.servers/listeners > > > returns a table/hash of objects with names as keys, but for example when > > > I want to pass such object to some other Lua function I have to manually > > > copy the name (or wrap the object), since the object itself doesn't > > > expose name info. > > > > > > You're right, it will be better adding the name in the object. I will > > do this. > > Thanks, > Willy
