Thank you Per! On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Per Buer <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Hugues Alary <[email protected]>wrote: > (..) > >> >> - I was wondering if communicating with varnish via HTTP header is a >> good solution? >> >> Yes. > >> >> - How bad can it be performance wise? >> >> Negligible. > > >> >> - Should I be worried about security (interception/modification of >> the communication between Varnish and the backend), even if no credential >> will never be sent through HTTP headers? (Also, currently Varnish and the >> backend are on the same machine, but chances are that they will in the >> future not live on the same host). >> >> > It's more or less impossible to turn Varnish into an open proxy so I > wouldn't worry about that. > > >> >> >> In the future, I plan on instructing varnish not to cache certain pages >> containing user defined query strings. I want the user to be able to >> specify these un-cachable urls query strings directly in the application. >> The application will then send the un-cachable query strings in a header >> X-Application-QueryStringNoCache: "querystring1,querystring2,...". >> >> Is that a bad idea? >> > > No. If it works for you then go for it. > > > -- > Per Buer, CEO > Phone: +47 21 98 92 61 / Mobile: +47 958 39 117 / Skype: per.buer > *Varnish makes websites fly!* > Whitepapers <http://www.varnish-software.com/whitepapers> | > Video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7t2Sp174eI> | > Twitter <https://twitter.com/varnishsoftware> > > > -- Hugues ALARY
_______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
