[PATCH] stale-while-revalidate updated

[Federico Schwindt]

You meant vcl_backend_response, right?

Actually there is yet another reason to do it in C.

If we were going to do it in the builtin vcl people wanting to override
this value would need to either return early or fiddle with the header.


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Nils Goroll <slink at schokola.de> wrote:

> On 27/08/14 23:34, Geoff Simmons wrote:
> > I think I'm unsure about what we're striving for in Varnish 4 --
> > wasn't the goal to move as much caching policy as possible out to VCL,
> > with good defaults in builtin.vcl?
>
> I see a bit of a tendency that we are moving towards having C code provide
> good/better defaults, still allowing VCL to modify them.
>
> This definitely is the case with fgs' proposed patch, vcl_backend_fetch
> still
> has the final word.
>
> But, yes, s-w-r can be done in VCL already (and it really is a good
> question if
> we shold just add it to the builtin.vcl). s-i-e, I think, needs additional
> C
> support to allow for a VCL implementation (see my post "restarting for bad
> synchronous responses").
>
> <side_note>
> Some header mangling (Vary, Etag) we are doing in fetch processors at the
> moment
> is the exact contrary - VCL control is reduced (limited to vcl_deliver)
> until we
> get explicit fetch processor pushes (which phk is planning for).
> </side_note>
>
> Nils
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20140828/f5d443cd/attachment-0001.html>