On 27/08/14 23:34, Geoff Simmons wrote: > I think I'm unsure about what we're striving for in Varnish 4 -- > wasn't the goal to move as much caching policy as possible out to VCL, > with good defaults in builtin.vcl?
I see a bit of a tendency that we are moving towards having C code provide good/better defaults, still allowing VCL to modify them. This definitely is the case with fgs' proposed patch, vcl_backend_fetch still has the final word. But, yes, s-w-r can be done in VCL already (and it really is a good question if we shold just add it to the builtin.vcl). s-i-e, I think, needs additional C support to allow for a VCL implementation (see my post "restarting for bad synchronous responses"). <side_note> Some header mangling (Vary, Etag) we are doing in fetch processors at the moment is the exact contrary - VCL control is reduced (limited to vcl_deliver) until we get explicit fetch processor pushes (which phk is planning for). </side_note> Nils _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
