On 07/10/2016 05:29 AM, Kinkie wrote: > Same thoughts as Amos: a common ACL switch to annotate results of the > matching seems more natural from the user's perspective (although > probably requires more code to implement).
AFAICT, Amos actually said the opposite -- he liked the proposed ACLs "better" than the currently rejected alternative (B). Please see my response for a list of (B) drawbacks (that Amos has requested). Do you still favor (B)? Alex. > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > > On 10/07/2016 7:14 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > > > > B. Add general ACL options to be able to force any existing ACL to add > > an annotation: > > > > acl myOldAcl dst --annotate foo=bar 127.0.0.1/32 > <http://127.0.0.1/32> > > > > Please let me know if you consider any of the above alternatives more > > attractive (than adding new ACLs) or need me to detail their drawbacks. > > > > I do like the below better. But for the record what was the drawback on > (B) that you saw as serious? > This used to be what we were planning to add one day. > > * acl aclname annotate_transaction key value [fast] ... _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
