On 10/03/15 21:53, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > I think the name looks ugly-ish, but I can't decide if I think there is > value in explicitly mentioning 304 vs. more clarity in a more descriptive > name (beresp.was_refreshed, beresp.refreshed ...)
I've named it was_304 now as the 304 was already a thing of the past when the flag is seen. <irrelevant side note> Other than that, please let's keep the mnemonic 304. Personally, I could never remember if it's beresp.uncacheable or beresp.cacheable (and have not looked that up now) and would really have preferred something like beresp.was_pass. </irrelevant side note> Nils _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
