Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

I think we should drop the ‘CCR profile’, but add a Delivery Service profile. We need parameters associated with a DS for sure. I say we also add a profile type that prevents cross-assigning profiles. Rgds, JvD > On Jan 2, 2017, at 8:23 AM, Steve Malenfant wrote: > > +1

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

@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

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

+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

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

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

Re: cdn table and domain_name parameter?

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan van Doorn 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