-------- In message <[email protected]>, Nils Goroll writes: >On 16/04/17 19:17, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> Did you miss the beresp.backend maybe ? >> No, I did not. >> >> I was wonder if more intimate exposure was considered or ignored ? > >The whole point of the VIP RFC is to modify the backend, and I intended to add >vmod functions later to (indirectly) manipulate the BACKEND object available in >the sub.
So this is where I think all the dragons will be found: Doesn't the backend implementation get any say in this? Summary: I'm OK with the idea, but we need to find out how this works with dynamic backends, in particular dynamic backends speaking FOOPROTO rather than HTTP. -- 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
