Hello! On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 08:40:55AM -0800, Thibault Charbonnier wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 4:54 AM, Maxim Dounin <mdou...@mdounin.ru> wrote: > > > > until there is a way to introduce variables > > support with less effort. > > What do you suggest to reduce the patch size? Should it take > care of those other timeout directives in other modules? > > One of my other hunch was to add the complex field on the > ngx_http_upstream_conf_t struct itself for widespread support. > Would you suggest this? > > The intent behind my patch was to gather feedback and iterate > over it with your suggestions. I'm highly sceptical about introducing variables support everywhere just to save some configuration complexity in very special cases. In most cases there better ways to organize things without using variables, as initial nginx configuration approach suggests. -- Maxim Dounin http://nginx.org/ _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list nginx-devel@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
