+1 on this for me. I'll have a look at the config algorithms later and see what needs changing for this... I could roll it into the api/ort config changes. Be a good time since we already have to rewrite most of those anyway for the scope usage in the api.
Derek > On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:14 PM, Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree, it would be great to drop the profile column from the > deliveryservice table (and add domain_name to cdn table). In my mind, a > profile is really a "server profile" and intended for servers (caches). In > addition, by allowing users to select a profile for a deliveryservice, we > introduce the possibility of human-error (they select the wrong CCR > profile) which can cause issues for the CDN. > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mark Torluemke <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>
