> The way we solve that problem in kernels is to name the VCL_HasBackend() > function VCL_CreateBackend() and allowing it to fail :-)
Why not keep VRT_new_backend as the only interface for VMODs and allow this one to fail? (or do the atomic auto-renaming if needed) > So far I have kept the CLI away from VMODs, but that is probably > not viable in the long term. > > The backend/director split is, as you point out, not clean, and > if nothing else the naming is horrible. > > So I think 5.0 is going to look quite differently than 4.1 in > this area. So maybe my narrow thinking is not that narrow if we narrow down the scope of Geoff's proposal to 4.1 :) It occurred to me today that I was replying with 4.1 in mind and that it may not be the case for you. Best, Dridi _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
