In message <[email protected]>, Ricardo N ewbery writes: > >On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:31 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> In message <79A2CE8A- >> [email protected]>, Ricardo N >> ewbery writes: >> >>> Sorry, I'm still unclear... >>> >>> Right now, doesn't purge_url also "ban" all Varys? >> >> Yes, but they won't be dealt with until they take a catch-hit. The >> idea is to deal with them all once we find the first one. >> >>> If so, then why would it matter whether a PURGE request resulted in a >>> real "purge" or a "ban"? >> >> It would get things out of the system faster. >> >> This may not make a big difference to most sites, but very interactive >> sites can have a LOT of purges going on. > > >Cool... so why do you figure that backwards compatibility is not >possible? If my old purge scripts now start "purging" rather than >"banning", why should anything break?
Purge wouldn't be a CLI command -- 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-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
