[varnish] Re: [varnish] Re: [varnish] renaming varnish concepts...

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <768C2A99-6D24-4D6F-B324-25E13CFBE0F7 at digitalmarbles.com>, Ricardo N
ewbery writes:
>
>On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:31 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> In message <79A2CE8A- 
>> A135-4542-9C8C-1F4327FED5F2 at digitalmarbles.com>, 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
phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.