On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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? > > That's the use case. I'd love to hear folks from the community weigh in, as it's been a topic for discussion many times, but we haven't had an explicit request for it. > 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 > > > > > >
