Sorry for the frenchism but it's turning into a "dialogue de sourd" :(
> VCC is not involved in dynamic backends. I *know* that. In the "Writing a director" documentation I *recommend* directors writers to back their director with a *VMOD object* because VMOD object come with a *unique* vcl_name and don't outlive the VCL's lifespan. It makes VMOD objects in my opinion the best facility to write a director. My point is that a VMOD writer *should be responsible* for not conflicting with other well-behaving VMODs. In this case, claiming a unique vcl_name as a first level of namespace seems like a good idea to me. > As Geoff said, a VMOD can spit out as many backends as it wants... I *know* that. In vmod-named I use the object's vcl_name as a basis for the backend, and use the resolved IP address to ensure uniqueness within this namespace. Crossing fingers that this time I'm making some sense. Dridi _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
