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 "lookup" or "find", "seek" , "search" somethign along those >> lines? instead of send-hit or reply_from. >> >> cache_lookup allow/deny has a nice clear semantic to it. >> >> cache_store_miss >> >> Even cache_write / cache_read are somewhat close to the intended behaviour. > > > I like "lookup" for point 1! > > Cache_store_miss for point 3 is usable, although having both "cache" and > "store" words in there is far from ideal. Either "cache_miss" or > "store_miss" would be better IMO. > > We still need send_hit or some such for decision point 2 though, as > discussed earlier. > > > I suggest a consistent verb+noun scheme: > > lookup_hit > send_hit > store_miss >
Okay that set will do. I can live without the cache_ prefix as long as it is consistently absent. > > A separate decision would be made whether to End-of-Life the existing > "cache" directive with its combined and overreaching side effects. > Okay. Separate patch for that part? Amos
