On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> wrote: > > "I have a plan" > > (Insert obligatory Olsen Banden reply-quote here: _____) > > The VCLv4 will have two distinct parts: client and backend which > will mostly run in separate threads. > > After looking at various approaches, it seems to me that it will > be the easiest rebuilding, if we start from the backend side and > end up with the client side of VCLv4, so I've made the following > plan: > > vcl_fetch{} becomes vcl_reponse{} > This is a straight renaming. > > vcl_response{} is called when we have the header back from > the backend and its main job is to validate the response, > and pick optional procesing (gzip, gunzip, esi, non-streaming) > > A new vcl_fetch{} > This will (a little later) replace vcl_miss{} and vcl_pass{} > > Pipe (probably) doesn't go here, it's too magical. > > vcl_fetch{} is called to pick backend and polish the bereq > for backend, including disabling conditional fetches. > > (req.backend becomes bereq.backend)
Maybe I'm coming in late to this game, but is it really necessary to reuse the old name? I'm seeing a lot of confusion amongst people for the simple reuse of "purge" in version 3 to mean something completely different to what it used to mean. This sounds like it could be even worse... Probably a lot less confusing if a completely new name can be invented, if it's a new function that does something else... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
