On 11/21/2013 01:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 16/10/2013 5:13 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 10/14/2013 09:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> >>> I think store_miss and send_hit are the best out of those above. >>> >>> The naming of HIT directive is a bit tricky, but the above is no more or >>> less ambiguous than reply_from_cache. >>> Perhapse "lookup" or "find", "seek" , "search" somethign along those >>> lines? instead of send-hit or reply_from. >>> >>> cache_lookup allow/deny has a nice clear semantic to it. >>> >>> cache_store_miss >>> >>> Even cache_write / cache_read are somewhat close to the intended behaviour. >> >> >> I like "lookup" for point 1! >> >> Cache_store_miss for point 3 is usable, although having both "cache" and >> "store" words in there is far from ideal. Either "cache_miss" or >> "store_miss" would be better IMO. >> >> We still need send_hit or some such for decision point 2 though, as >> discussed earlier. >> >> >> I suggest a consistent verb+noun scheme: >> >> lookup_hit >> send_hit >> store_miss >> > > Okay that set will do. I can live without the cache_ prefix as long as > it is consistently absent.
send_hit and store_miss are now committed to trunk (r13190). Besides renaming, I documented one more difference among the three options (only "cache" supports slow ACLs). lookup_hit has not been implemented yet. Volunteers welcome, but it may be a good idea to finish the "cache" removal discussion first because it may affect how lookup_hit is implemented. >> A separate decision would be made whether to End-of-Life the existing >> "cache" directive with its combined and overreaching side effects. >> > > Okay. Separate patch for that part? Yeah. None planned from me at this point, but I hope somebody will write it once the discussion is over. Thank you, Alex.
