On 19/09/2018 22:20, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > One thing I *really* miss right now is some serious high-end > benchmarking, to inform decisions about how much CPU we can afford > to "waste" on stuff like this.
Apologies for playing this back to you, but you seem to imply that we would need some kind of run-time method resolution and this is in no way what I had been thinking of when I proposed to dedicate an "object accessor" method. Re Dridi: On 19/09/2018 19:08, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > That won't work when .backend() takes arguments *cough* hash *cough*. Sure, I am aware that the simple text replacement example is a special case - and it was only that, an example. > I suggested in the past that "vmod-object ~ arg" syntax could automatically > be turned into "vmod-object.match(arg)" when we have a matching (pun > intended) "BOOL .match(SINGLE-ARG)" method. +1 Nils _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev