In message <[email protected]>, Tollef Fog Heen writes :
>As long as you can detect whether a 503 is internally generated or not, >that's fine. That is an interesting idea, but why would that be important ? >I don't think the 3.1 vs 4.0 naming is particularly important, but I >know you feel much stronger about that than I do. I think we owe the users to clearly mark when we muck about with VCL syntax. If consensus is that 3.1 is sufficient warning, then fine by me. >> Eventually sess->ws should only exist when sessions do not >> wait, and then worker->ws can then be eliminated and sess->ws >> contain both req.* and resp.* (Hopefully in 4.0) > >Won't sess->ws always exist (and probably be where most vmods will store >their data) or do you actually mean what you wrote? I usually mean what I write, but I may not have thought it through before I wrote it :-) My reasoning for the above is that large sites have very high numbers of sessions waiting to see if the client will send more requests and we need to reduce the memory pressure of that. This is not a trivial change by any means, amongst other things a trivial implementations opens several DoS vulnerabilities, so unless I get hit by a really fast inspiratron, this will be somewhere past 4.0 -- 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] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
