Willy,
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote:
> More or less. I'd rather return a 3rd case, like with do with samples :
> "not sure yet" (need more data to decide). That allows the failure and
> success cases to remain definitive.
Indeed, that what I was trying to say with: "to wait until a keyword
handler says it is ready to process the command" :) : it will keep
saying "need more data" until it can decide and say "OK I continued
and processed the command" or "I couldn't process it".
> I just don't know exactly what is *currently* used. And we make it a
> hard rule not to break existing deployments on purpose. People write
> management scripts, utilities etc and purposely breaking their API is
> really not fun at all. This is the *only* reason here.
And I fully agree with that, I want to add the feature without being
too intrusive or being non retro-compatible.
> I think we're in sync on this. Please take a look at OCSP to see how it's
> currently handled so that we don't have to imagine all possibly stupid
> cases. Also take a look at {set|add} {acl|map} and I think that should
> be all for now to get the whole picture of the compatiblity we have to
> maintain.
>
I will do that and check if everything can fit in.
Thanks !
--
Aurélien Nephtali
