On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:18:10PM -0400, Michael Ezzell wrote: > I don't see a significant problem, if there are benefits to be gained. > > I assume part of the motivation is to prevent inadvertently calling an > inappropriate function as an action, to perhaps to allow earlier validation > of the configuration of actions referencing Lua functions, and to separate > the namespaces of Lua functions and HAProxy Lua actions.
I'm seeing the same benefit. In fact I even *thought* that actions were registered like fetch/convs. But the current state of affairs now scares me for the future because indeed we don't want to call random functions by accident. Also, I don't know if some functions are shipped with Lua, but it could be painful if a new version of Lua brings new functions which collide with ones that people use in their configs. With a registration mechanism this cannot happen at all, so it's much safer. It will also allow to use a wider character set in action names (eg: '-' or '.' that we use in the core config language). So all in all I think it's a good idea that's worth being done *before* the actual release otherwise we could regret it later. Thierry, what's the impact of such a change (in terms of complexity, amount of code changed, risks of regressions, etc) ? I've found the issues I've been debugging since last week-end, they're fixed on paper now, I just need to fix the code and I'm thinking about issuing dev6 with all the pending fixes and having an extra dev7 next week before -final. Do you think such a change could be ready for dev6 so that people don't have to wait an extra week to test a change ? Thanks, Willy
