[PATCH] Add a flag to mark 304 backend response processing (aka, Backend IMS/INM)
fgsch at lodoss.net
Tue Mar 10 23:56:26 CET 2015
My personal preference is to use something that is more descriptive and
does not mention 304.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
> In message <54F9DFA7.3050006 at schokola.de>, Nils Goroll writes:
> >This is a compromise discussed at VDD15Q1 after a previous suggestion
> >to expose the 304 response status directly to VCL.
> >+ ('beresp.is_304',
> I think the name looks ugly-ish, but I can't decide if I think there is
> value in explicitly mentioning 304 vs. more clarity in a more descriptive
> name (beresp.was_refreshed, beresp.refreshed ...)
> Other than that, it looks OK.
> 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.
> varnish-dev mailing list
> varnish-dev at varnish-cache.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the varnish-dev