Re: backend/director admin states / std.resolve_backend? / PRIV_REQ?

I guess this thread still lacks my response to phks reply: On 03/05/18 11:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Admin health is owned by the CLI and director implementations do not > get to meddle with it. (But they do get to see it) I understand the point, but allowing vmods to change the admin

Re: backend/director admin states / std.resolve_backend? / PRIV_REQ?

On 09/05/18 11:34, Nils Goroll wrote: > ban() cli VCL that is ___ varnish-dev mailing list varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev

VDI_Resolve -> VRT, default behaviour for no healthy() cb

I'm picking up two loose threads from #varnish-hacking: VDI_Resolve --- I'm working on a director which needs to resolve another (layered) director argument, so I'd prefer to have basically VDI_Resolve in VRT. Proposed signature: VCL_BACKEND VRT_Resolve(VRT_CTX, VCL_BACKEND)

Re: VDI_Resolve -> VRT, default behaviour for no healthy() cb

On 09/05/18 17:28, Nils Goroll wrote: > VDI_Resolve > --- > > I'm working on a director which needs to resolve another (layered) director > argument for those interested, I've pushed a working prototype to a public repo: https://code.uplex.de/uplex-varnish/libvmod-cluster