-------- In message <cabovn9d3+upxram2nnj83av6yn1npzp9fo8q-j-yfkabc6j...@mail.gmail.com>, Dridi Bouke lmoune writes:
>> But that reminds me: What was the consensus on my proposal for .%d suffix >> for colliding backend names ? > >I didn't follow the discussions, I only saw that something was going >on with dynamic backends. But adding a suffix to the backend name >doesn't seem like a good idea IMHO. I think it would be confusing for >end users to deal with dupes and figuring out what's going on. > >I'd rather shift the responsibility to VMOD writers to follow the POLA >and have Varnish enforce rules such as not having two backends with >the same name. I don't care how it's handled (panic or return NULL) >but I think we shouldn't have some magic behavior. So what if two different VMODs both try to create a backend with the same name ? In my view, the "magic behaviour" is to fail randomly for reasons the VMOD writer has no control over... -- 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
