[PATCH] stale-while-revalidate updated

[Federico Schwindt]

Updated patch after commit f2caddcf.



On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Federico Schwindt <fgsch at lodoss.net> wrote:

> 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/b49dc682/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0000.stale-while-revalidate.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20140828/b49dc682/attachment.bin>