On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 10:40 PM, Kristian Grønfeldt Sørensen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 December 2015 at 15:05, Geoff Simmons <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 12/07/2015 02:30 PM, Rubén Romero wrote: >> > >> > While on the topic of changing defaults, I think we should include >> > Surrogate-Control and ESI parsing in to the builtin VCL as >> > discussed yesterday. [snip] >> If we really want to do this, the tag might have to be something like >> "ESI/Varnish" or "ESI/include&remove" or "VESI/x.y". (There's a >> precedent for the latter -- Oracle Web Cache uses "ORAESI/x.y.z".) > > > I would prefer if Varnish somehow advertised it's ESI capabilities by > default. I don't really have an opinion on how exactly it should be done as > long as we don't risk to break anything that correctly implements the full > ESI spec . Any of your 3 suggestions would work for me personally.
Yes to this. It's a nice approach and might get more devs to use ESI when it doesn't involve starting a whole ITIL supply chain to get ESI enabled. -- http://comotion.delta9.pl http://u.delta9.pl http://kacper.doesntexist.org Too much order is its own chaos. Employ no technique to gain supreme enlightment. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
