VCL storage discussion summary

[Federico Schwindt]

In my experience setups defining multiple storages are few and they use
them explicitly (in VCL).

While I'm not necessarily advocating this change I think this will be
closer to how someone would expect it to work.
Waiting for the next major release and documenting the change might do the
trick.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> --------
> In message <CAJV_h0baK40Nf=r5t7TRZTTpOiVQ8jJrkKuCjxrYYkD2LKO7qA at mail.
> gmail.com>
> , Federico Schwindt writes:
>
> >Why? Is there anyone depending on this feature?
>
> Pretty much anyone with two -s arguments are, and they probably dont know
> it.
>
> >Wouldn't be easier to visualise and/or explain what is going where if it's
> >done explicitly?
>
> This doesn't preclude doing it explicitly, it merely maintains existing
> configs working.
>
> --
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20161010/31d50f82/attachment.html>