In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Nottingha
m writes:
>On 2007/11/21, at 4:54 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> The only truly precise way to characterize varnish, IMO, is "A
>> webserver that uses HTTP to get at its content".
>
>This is a good characterisation. It would probably be more correct
I brought up the same issue that the original posted did a while
back, only to be rebuffed in a similar manner.
I'd suggest that the problem here is one of terminology. Defining
what Varnish does using HTTP terms is at best murky, so extra care
needs to be taken so that users aren't misled
"BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not use "HTTP accelerator" ? It is pretty much self-explanatory,
> and does not imply anything about caching.
That's what I've been trying to use consistently since the beginning
(cf. the front page, the SourceForge public profile, the F
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
> Poul-Henning Kamp
>
> The only truly precise way to characterize varnish, IMO, is
> "A webserver that uses HTTP to get at its content".
Why not use "HTTP accelerator" ? It is pretty much self-
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The closest there is to a formal description of what Varnish is
> > and how it should behave is the Edge Architecture Specification,
> > which unfortunately is far less impressive than its title.
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rg
rav?= writes:
>The closest there is to a formal description of what Varnish is and
>how it should behave is the Edge Architecture Specification, which
>unfortunately is far less impressive than its title.
ESI is indeed not impressi
"Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you build a description/table of how an RFC2616 cache (I
> understand that to be an HTTP accelerator, but google's kind of slow
> to come up in this slow machine) should act, I promise I will build
> at least a flowchart.
There is no such t
If you build a description/table of how an RFC2616 cache (I understand that to
be an HTTP accelerator, but google's kind of slow to come up in this slow
machine) should act, I promise I will build at least a flowchart.
And your ideas are great!
El Mar 20 Nov 2007, BUSTARRET, Jean-francois escri
"BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > BTW, could I suggest that you subscribe to varnish-misc or
> > varnish-dev (or both) so I don't have to manually approve
> > everything you send to the list?
> Sorry for that. I'll never get
Calling someone arrogant for assuming that Varnish would follow RFC2616 sounds
over reactive to me.
-john
p.s. I follow this list because I expect Varnish to be better than squid for my
purposes (very large working set HTTP acceleration, both product and community
wise.
- Original Messa
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Dag-Erling Smørgrav [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Documentation is always welcome. The wiki needs a lot of
> work, and both Poul-Henning and I have far too much to do
> (both with Varnish and other projects) to be able to spend
> much time on it.
I'll send s
"BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO, this is mainly a documentation problem. Why not :
> - remove the term "reverse proxy" from the FAQ and replace it by "HTTP
> Accelerator",
> - describe exactly what/when varnish caches by default,
> - describe how to build a RFC2616 re
"Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you really need to snap at contributors, Dag-Erling?
Which contributors? All I see in this discussion are people trying to
tell me what to do with my (and my employer's) time. It is one thing
to ask questions about something you do not un
I won't reply to the first part of DES message...
I understand the point, and, as I said before, I really like the VCL approach.
The real problem is that, for a new varnish user, it is difficult to understand
what varnish really is. A new user would read the FAQ and think that varnish is
a rev
Do you really need to snap at contributors, Dag-Erling? I happen to agree
with him in the sense that pulling Varnish (VCL or *not*) in the direction of
a complete standards-compliant configuration-free smart Web accelerator is a
very good idea.
The grandfather poster may be a bit misguided as
"BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yet http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/FAQ says "Varnish was
> written from the ground up to be a high performance caching reverse
> proxy." Varnish is a cache, and should follow HTTP/1.1 RFCs.
Excuse me, but who are you to tell us what
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a draft floating around which defines a "Surrogate-Control"
> along the lines of "Cache-Control" but it seems to have little
> backing and even less use.
It has just as much backing and use as ESI; in fact, it is a
prerequisite for ESI.
D
Yet http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/FAQ says "Varnish was written from
the ground up to be a high performance caching reverse proxy." Varnish is a
cache, and should follow HTTP/1.1 RFCs.
http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/HTTPFeatures also references these
features :
355 MUST NO
18 matches
Mail list logo
