[PATCH] add documentation about backend naming for VMOD authors

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

--------
In message <CABoVN9D3+upxRaM2nnj83av6yn1NPzP9FO8Q-j-YfKaBC6JiLw at mail.gmail.com>, Dridi Bouke
lmoune writes:

>> But that reminds me:  What was the consensus on my proposal for .%d suffix
>> for colliding backend names ?
>
>I didn't follow the discussions, I only saw that something was going
>on with dynamic backends. But adding a suffix to the backend name
>doesn't seem like a good idea IMHO. I think it would be confusing for
>end users to deal with dupes and figuring out what's going on.
>
>I'd rather shift the responsibility to VMOD writers to follow the POLA
>and have Varnish enforce rules such as not having two backends with
>the same name. I don't care how it's handled (panic or return NULL)
>but I think we shouldn't have some magic behavior.

So what if two different VMODs both try to create a backend with the
same name ?

In my view, the "magic behaviour" is to fail randomly for reasons the
VMOD writer has no control over...

-- 
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.