Hi Willy, > On 9 Aug 2024, at 16:26, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > […] > I'd be interested in opinions on some of these options: > - deprecate duplicate server names for 3.1, requiring a global option > to support them and drop their support for 3.3 ? > - just drop the support of duplicate server names right now in 3.1 ? > - keep these working "forever" and reconsider the option later, due to > a very valid case that I'm ignoring ?
If I’d realized, I’d have assumed I found a bug I think; wonder how that even gets handled by things like the prom exporter which key purely by name? +1 for drop in 3.1 > - for backends + frontends, deprecate same names in 3.1, drop in 3.3, > or drop now ? Or keep them ? For a pure proxy case without any load balancing (1 fe, 1 be, 1 server) I can see it being a bit heavy to have to name both, likely xyz-frontend and xyz-backend or something. Is that justification enough? I’m not convinced. Neutral. wrt the stick tables example, the real crime is that naming them explicitly isn’t mandatory, at both declaration and usage time… I’m not sure what the scope rules are for them, but I promptly decided it was not desirable knowledge when I started using them… > […] We > could even consider backporting a warning for such cases in 3.0 so as > to limit the surprise if we were to drop that right now. +1 > Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this topic. > Willy > > PPPS: please no delirium about how we should take this opportunity to > revist all the config language ;-)
