Public alternative to VFP_Push

[Guillaume Quintard]

Thank you for both of your answers!

On 25.04.22 11:12, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> The problem with VFP_Push() is that you cannot control the order in
> any usable way, whereas editing the filter_list gives you full control.

The theoretical issue I have with this is that to use filter_list, I need
to register the filter, which opens it to be used by VCL writers, even
though the vmod should be the only one fiddling with it (notably because it
must be the first in line, and only after some internal setup happened).

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:03 AM Nils Goroll <slink at schokola.de> wrote:
> As pesi is so tightly coupled to core code, and, consequently is a
"VARNISHSRC"
> vmod, that I do not care about API boundaries,

That's convenient :-) I'm probably going to do the same. The slight
annoyance in my case is that I have to decide whether to expose VFP_Push
(and possibly others) in the rust bindings (breaking the API barrier way
upstream), or if I just let vmods declare the bindings themselves
downstream.
At the moment I don't care because I own the bindings and all the rust
vmods I know of, but it may change at some point (and we can wait until
them until exploring this again).

-- 
Guillaume Quintard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20220425/7b180210/attachment.html>