Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-12-18 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 12/18/2013 04:16 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 16/10/2013 4:36 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> >> Going forward, I think we need to decide: >> >> A) Whether altering the existing "cache" directive semantics is >> desirable. If it is a good idea, we can remove or deprecate that option >> and ignore

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-12-18 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 11/21/2013 01:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 16/10/2013 5:13 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 10/14/2013 09:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> >>> I think store_miss and send_hit are the best out of those above. >>> >>> The naming of HIT directive is a bit tricky, but the above is no more or >>>

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-12-18 Thread Amos Jeffries
Bumping this discussion. On 16/10/2013 4:36 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > > Going forward, I think we need to decide: > > A) Whether altering the existing "cache" directive semantics is > desirable. If it is a good idea, we can remove or deprecate that option > and ignore its [end-of-life] existe

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-11-21 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 16/10/2013 5:13 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 10/14/2013 09:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> >> I think store_miss and send_hit are the best out of those above. >> >> The naming of HIT directive is a bit tricky, but the above is no more or >> less ambiguous than reply_from_cache. >> Perhapse "lo

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-15 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 10/14/2013 09:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > I think store_miss and send_hit are the best out of those above. > > The naming of HIT directive is a bit tricky, but the above is no more or > less ambiguous than reply_from_cache. > Perhapse "lookup" or "find", "seek" , "search" somethign along t

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-15 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 10/14/2013 10:42 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 15/10/2013 5:09 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> I forgot to mention that we can also try to do here what we did for >> ssl_bump. That is, enlarging the set of actions from the default >> allow/deny to allow/deny/ignore-miss/ignore-hit/store-miss/send-

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-15 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 10/14/2013 09:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > Another idea is whether to add a name= parameter to the cache_dir and > have "cache X allow/deny ..." rules per storage area. To go a little > further than min/max object sizes. I think the above should be done by adding cache_dir (and memory cache)

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 15/10/2013 5:42 p.m., Amos Jeffries wrote: On 15/10/2013 5:09 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: On 10/14/2013 07:06 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: On 10/11/2013 08:55 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: On 12/10/2013 11:38 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: The attached patch adds reply_from_cache and reply_to_cac

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 15/10/2013 5:09 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: On 10/14/2013 07:06 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: On 10/11/2013 08:55 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: On 12/10/2013 11:38 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: The attached patch adds reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache squid.conf directives to control caching of

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-14 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 10/14/2013 07:06 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 10/11/2013 08:55 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> On 12/10/2013 11:38 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >> >>> The attached patch adds reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache >>> squid.conf directives to control caching of responses using response >>> info. >>

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-14 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 15/10/2013 2:24 p.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote: Couple notes in between the lines. On 10/15/2013 04:06 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote: >I have been considering way to make the "cache" directive the top level >of a set of the caching configuration. Similar to how auth_param is the >tope level of m

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-14 Thread Eliezer Croitoru
Couple notes in between the lines. On 10/15/2013 04:06 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote: >I have been considering way to make the "cache" directive the top level >of a set of the caching configuration. Similar to how auth_param is the >tope level of most auth scheme options. > >Would you be able to mak

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-14 Thread Alex Rousskov
On 10/11/2013 08:55 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 12/10/2013 11:38 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > >> The attached patch adds reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache >> squid.conf directives to control caching of responses using response >> info. >> >> The reply_from_cache directive can prevent servi

Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-11 Thread Amos Jeffries
On 12/10/2013 11:38 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: Hello, The attached patch adds reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache squid.conf directives to control caching of responses using response info. The reply_from_cache directive can prevent serving of HITs while reply_to_cache can prevent storage o

[PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

2013-10-11 Thread Alex Rousskov
Hello, The attached patch adds reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache squid.conf directives to control caching of responses using response info. The reply_from_cache directive can prevent serving of HITs while reply_to_cache can prevent storage of MISSes. The two can be combined or used independ