On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune < [email protected]> wrote:
> One last question then, why do you expect PATCH requests ? > > (I know I'm curious =) > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Sean Allen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> This is very interesting and didactic, and I have a few questions : > >> > >> Why not simply trust the backend? > >> if (beresp.http.x-invalidates && beresp.status >= 200 && beresp.status < > >> 400) { > >> ban("obj.http.x-url ~ " + beresp.http.x-invalidates); > >> } > >> > > > > Completeness I suppose. I see your point. > > Something to think about. > > > >> > >> I don't see any handling of the PATCH method in vcl_recv, check it > doesn't > >> end up being piped: > >> if (req.request != "GET" && > >> req.request != "HEAD" && > >> req.request != "PUT" && > >> req.request != "POST" && > >> req.request != "TRACE" && > >> req.request != "OPTIONS" && > >> req.request != "DELETE") { > >> /* Non-RFC2616 or CONNECT which is weird. */ > >> return (pipe); > >> } > > > > > > We don't have any clients that use PATCH. But that is a good point, I > should > > add just to be safe. > Ah, patch in the normal default. I put it in ours because we plan on switching over to using it instead of our existing hacky 'partial update PUT' -- Ce n'est pas une signature
_______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
