@derek: we should probably take a look at what goes first; I think I have a good start on the profile / domain_name thing, so don’t start the work.
@jeremy (and others): I think I still like having a profile. Maybe we add a profile type as well? That would make it easy for us to implement checks against invalid assignment. I know we talked about getting rid of the the table in the future, but man, it’s so useful. Cheers, JvD > On Dec 27, 2016, at 1:17 PM, Gelinas, Derek <[email protected]> wrote: > > +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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
