In message <[email protected]>, =?iso-8859-1? Q?Ask_Bj=F8rn_Hansen?= writes:
>Since you were bike-shedding, I'd add my 2 cents that I'd find >"invalidate" much easier to understand than "ban". Invalidate >clearly acts on "stuff from the past", where "ban" seems like it'd >operate on data in the future. (Even if that's how it works, the >effect of a ban is to invalidate old data). The problem is that a "ban" does operate in the future: It bans (matching) cached objects from being served. "invalidate" implies immediate action, and the entire point is to avoid just that. -- 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
