[PATCH] add documentation about backend naming for VMOD authors
geoff at uplex.de
Mon Nov 2 11:31:21 CET 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/02/2015 09:32 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
> Sorry for the frenchism but it's turning into a "dialogue de sourd"
Dridi, mon ami, ce n`est pas grave. %^)
My impression is that we're all insistently agreeing with each other.
> In the "Writing a director" documentation I *recommend* directors
> writers to back their director with a *VMOD object* because VMOD
> object come with a *unique* vcl_name and don't outlive the VCL's
> lifespan. It makes VMOD objects in my opinion the best facility to
> write a director.
Certainly, that's a good solution -- as long as your use case allows
for it. You could even have an object generate multiple backends,
using the object's name for a "safe namespace", within which it
creates unique names (say by adding the ".%d" suffix).
And you've made it clear that you're fully aware that using objects is
not the only, necessary solution -- and even then, the VMOD has to go
through the motions of using the object's vcl_name for backend names.
However the VMOD goes about it, uniqueness of naming with all of the
consequences is something it has to take care of (or not, and take the
Adding something to the Varnish/VRT interface to make it work right
will go a long way to making this painless.
(Sorry, slink is better at that than I am.)
** * * UPLEX - Nils Goroll Systemoptimierung
Tel +49 40 2880 5731
Mob +49 176 636 90917
Fax +49 40 42949753
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the varnish-dev