My personal preference is to use something that is more descriptive and does not mention 304.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <[email protected]> wrote: > -------- > In message <[email protected]>, Nils Goroll writes: > > >This is a compromise discussed at VDD15Q1 after a previous suggestion > >to expose the 304 response status directly to VCL. > > > >+ ('beresp.is_304', > > 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 ...) > > Other than that, it looks OK. > > -- > 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 >
_______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
