Hello!
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 06:24:45PM -0700, Thibault Charbonnier wrote:
[...]
> > Thus, in my opinion, such an approach would raise more questions than
> > answers.
>
> One could maybe argue that not resolving /etc/hosts raises just as many
> questions, with different answers? Maybe a compromised approach as
> suggested above could help alleviate this feeling?
Current answers are quite obvious and intuitive:
- All names resolved via resolver are resolved using the DNS
servers specified. Nothing more.
- If one want to specify static mapping, he/she can use upstream{}
blocks to do so.
Trying to introduce additional sources of information will
inevitable add more questions with not-so-obvious answers. Not to
mention that the next step will be to add nsswitch.conf and other
sources it supports, as well as source ordering. And this is
certainly not something we want to add.
So I think the main question here is: why it should be added, if
at all? Which problems this feature is expected to resolve?
Current answers does not seem to outweight questions added /
support costs of this feature. Especially given the fact that
code suggested is far from being committable.
--
Maxim Dounin
http://nginx.org/
_______________________________________________
nginx-devel mailing list
nginx-devel@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
