I won't reply to the first part of DES message... I understand the point, and, as I said before, I really like the VCL approach. The real problem is that, for a new varnish user, it is difficult to understand what varnish really is. A new user would read the FAQ and think that varnish is a reverse proxy, but, as said, it isn't (out of the box, I agree that a reverse proxy is only a few lines of VCL code away).
IMHO, this is mainly a documentation problem. Why not : - remove the term "reverse proxy" from the FAQ and replace it by "HTTP Accelerator", - describe exactly what/when varnish caches by default, - describe how to build a RFC2616 reverse proxy, and bundle a sample vcl with varnish. As Poul-Henning told, someone should contribute/sponsor this. Having more time than money (and feeling not 100% welcome here), I can write some documentation if you agree. Jean-François > -----Message d'origine----- > De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de > Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) > Envoyé : mardi 20 novembre 2007 12:31 > À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : Re: Support Cache-Control no-cache/private as per RFC2616 ? > > Do you really need to snap at contributors, Dag-Erling? I > happen to agree with him in the sense that pulling Varnish > (VCL or *not*) in the direction of a complete > standards-compliant configuration-free smart Web accelerator > is a very good idea. > > The grandfather poster may be a bit misguided as to what > standards Varnish would need to comply to, but your comment > would have easily been more constructive if you just had > limited yourself to the Edge mention. > > And, of course, you are already publicly aware of my position > regarding the matter. > > An idea: We need a matrix (OK, a nice table) or a decision > tree of what actions Varnish should take by default, given a > set of requests and content of varied freshness degrees. > Once that work is done, moving VCL (and the default VCL > config) in the direction that will allow us to actually > produce that decision tree, should be much easier and clearer. > > El Mar 20 Nov 2007, Dag-Erling Smørgrav escribió: > > "BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yet http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/FAQ says "Varnish was > > > written from the ground up to be a high performance > caching reverse > > > proxy." Varnish is a cache, and should follow HTTP/1.1 RFCs. > > > > Excuse me, but who are you to tell us what Varnish is or is > not? Do > > you realize how arrogant that is? > > > > That aside, you are trying to fit Varnish into an RFC2616 > pigeonhole, > > but there is no pigeonhole that fits - RFC2616 did not anticipate > > anything like Varnish. There is a draft W3 specification, the Edge > > Architecture Specification, which attempts to fill that > hole, but it > > is not widely known, so I'm not sure it would help much to > write that > > Varnish is an HTTP surrogate rather than an HTTP > accelerator (I try to > > avoid the term "reverse proxy"). > > > > DES > > > > -- > > Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ > GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ > > Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Voodoo & Serano - Blood is > pumping So this is it. We're going to die. > _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
