I wrote a post about one of the ways we are using varnish at TheLadders

[Sean Allen]

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune <
dridi.boukelmoune at zenika.com> 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 <sean at monkeysnatchbanana.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune
> > <dridi.boukelmoune at zenika.com> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20130503/2aee20d0/attachment-0001.html>