On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Federico Schwindt <[email protected]> wrote: > They will need to be different subroutines though since the variables are > different (resp vs beresp).
I didn't think about that, in this case yes you can't implement a single error handling without duplication. > This means they need to be in sync which adds extra complexity and is error > prone IMO. Nevertheless, I still find your patch OK. > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This is kind of like how you may duplicate bereq manipulations between >> vcl_miss and vcl_pass with Varnish 3 (no there's vcl_backend_fetch). >> >> A current workaround would be to call custom vcl subs in both >> vcl_synth and vcl_backend_error. Otherwise the patch looks simple >> enough :) >> >> Dridi >> >> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Federico Schwindt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Currently if you want to have all your error handling in a single place, >> > i.e. vcl_synth{}, and you end up in vcl_backend_error{} you have to >> > either >> > return retry and then abandon in vcl_backend_fetch{} or return deliver >> > and >> > in vcl_deliver{} return synth. >> > >> > I can't think of any reason for not allowing this so the attached patch >> > lifts this restriction. >> > >> > Comments? OKs? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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
