OK, thanks for your response. However, does this mean my patch would be OK for a version 2.1.5 if trunk is not "production-stable" enough ?
Thierry -----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Poul-Henning Kamp Envoyé : mardi 22 mars 2011 17:17 À : MAGNIEN, Thierry Cc : [email protected] Objet : Re: Patch proposal: handling multiple Set-Cookie headers from backend In message <4a029b1a60b8e340a50d654d2f130daa2fcea3a...@excv001.encara.local.ads >, "MAGNIEN, Thierry" writes: >I had a look into the source code and it seemed to me that the >following patch would be enough to get it working. However, I find >it so simple that I'm afraid I missed something ;-) You did :-) There is a vmod_std function for doing this in -trunk now. import std from ... sub vcl_fetch { std.collect(resp.http.set-cookie); } I'm still hoping that we'll find time/hands to produce a vmod_cookie which would give a sensible API, so people can clearly express what they want: import cookie from ... sub vcl_recv { cookie.keep_only("This_cookie", "That_cookie"); if (cookie.get("This_cookie") == "mumblemumble") { ... } } sub vcl_fetch { cookie.keep_only("This_cookie", "That_cookie"); } -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
