>---- Original Message ---- >From: Alex Rousskov <rouss...@measurement-factory.com> >To: "Eliezer Croitoru" <elie...@ngtech.co.il> >Cc: "Squid Developers" <squid-dev@squid-cache.org> >Sent: Sat, Oct 6, 2012, 11:49 PM >Subject: Re: Summary of store_url project and some questions before posting >some patches. > >On 10/06/2012 09:24 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: >> As I moved forward and managed to make store_url feature stable to pass >> all of my tests The next step is to state a summary of the feature. >> >> The goal of store_url feature is to give squid a way to handle >> De-duplication of objects. >> >> Code implementation is quite simple but since I was working with the old >> bzr revision 12317 ant now its about 30 revisions up I dont have a clue >> on what to do. >> for now I downloaded the new 2a revision 12349. What do you think about that? does it matters at all?
>> >> >> How it was done in squid 2.7 is less relevant for squid 3 branch >> implementation and was reviewed in the other thread. >> >> We discussed earlier on "url" to "originalUrl" refactoring and it seems >> to me that this will make a big and unneeded modification to the code >> that is not needed to achieve the goal. > >One reason to rename the old "url" field is so that we can double check >that you caught all usage cases. If you do not rename, the patch will >not show the cases you missed (if any). Any renaming changes for this >reason alone can be later dropped (after reviews and before the commit). > >Another reason is to alert future developers that they are dealing with >a URL which may be different from the store URL. If this is a valid/good >reason, the renaming should stay. Ok seems reasonable to me. > > >> Also At every place the store_url is mentioned can be the indication of >> it while every other place a "url" or "canonicalUrl" is mentioned will >> be the mark of original url usage. > >Yes, but those "every other places" will not be visible in the patch and >since "url" is a rather generic term some of them may be difficult to >find in Squid sources using a manual search. > I wont say that there is no possiblitiy but I didnt used only manual search for it since it's unreasonable in such a huge ammount of code. I indeed found one place that I needed to change the code and since it was in a #IF statement only the compiler was able to recognize it. > >HTH, > >Alex. Thanks, Helps a lot!
