> or its own table entirely, with a link to the 'cdn' table. Do you think we should consider supporting multiple domains per CDN in the future? Or is there another use case?
Rgds, JvD > On Dec 26, 2016, at 09:13, Mark Torluemke <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agree, I also believe the CCR profile <> deliveryservice mapping is > superfluous, now that there is a link from cdn <> deliveryservice. This was > discussed when the 'cdn' table was being implemented, but perhaps too late > into the implementation phase. Further, I also agree that the domain_name > parameter should be moved to the 'cdn' table, or its own table entirely, with > a link to the 'cdn' table. > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jan van Doorn <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Looking at the ATS 6.2 support for TO which requires a deliveryservice to > profile mapping, and was wondering why we still have the profile column (CCR > Profile) in deliveryservice? > > At first glance it seems to be used for the domain_name parameter only (?), > and that could (should?) be moved to the cdn table? Not sure if this was > considered when the cdn table was added and decided against for a good reason? > > Cheers, > JvD > >
