[PATCH] Add a flag to mark 304 backend response processing (aka, Backend IMS/INM)

[Federico Schwindt]

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>
wrote:

> --------
> 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
> https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20150310/6e7fd415/attachment.html>