-------- In message <cal6a+5ieu96c8s5248ukcdwjftdvkwjszyg7m3km59j7cmj...@mail.gmail.com> , Arianna Aondio writes: >>>Now, I think having function 1 as part of std_vmod is a good idea, > >>I don't think this belongs in std_vmod, it is a well defined >>specialised type of functionality and that naturally belongs in >>its own vmod I think. > >With "own vmod" do you mean a vmod that can be part of the main >distribution or a vmod that doesn't live in Varnish at all?
A vmod separate from vmod_std. And it can be part of the varnish dist if we decide it is sufficiently popular/useful/quality etc. etc. >>If somebody feels adventurous it could be a candidate for >>vmod implemented VDP-based synthetic object generator. > >I'm sorry,but I don't really understand this statement. >I don't get how involving VDP could simplify or improve such a vmod. I didn't say it would simplify or improve the vmod. The main benefit would be that you wouldn't have to buffer the output, but could produce it incrementally. -- 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
