+1 to drop the profile from the delivery service. As for multiple domain_name per CDN,does this mean also having Traffic Router support multiple TLDs?
Steve On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jan van Doorn <[email protected]> wrote: > @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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >
