Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

On 11/21/2013 01:10 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 16/10/2013 5:13 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 10/14/2013 09:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>>
>>> I think store_miss and send_hit are the best out of those above.
>>>
>>> The naming of HIT directive is a bit tricky, but the above is no more or
>>> less ambiguous than reply_from_cache.
>>> Perhapse "lookup" or "find", "seek" , "search" somethign along those
>>> lines? instead of send-hit or reply_from.
>>>
>>> cache_lookup allow/deny has a nice clear semantic to it.
>>>
>>> cache_store_miss
>>>
>>> Even cache_write / cache_read are somewhat close to the intended behaviour.
>>
>>
>> I like "lookup" for point 1!
>>
>> Cache_store_miss for point 3 is usable, although having both "cache" and
>> "store" words in there is far from ideal. Either "cache_miss" or
>> "store_miss" would be better IMO.
>>
>> We still need send_hit or some such for decision point 2 though, as
>> discussed earlier.
>>
>>
>> I suggest a consistent verb+noun scheme:
>>
>> lookup_hit
>> send_hit
>> store_miss
>>
>
> Okay that set will do. I can live without the cache_ prefix as long as
> it is consistently absent.

send_hit and store_miss are now committed to trunk (r13190). Besides
renaming, I documented one more difference among the three options (only
"cache" supports slow ACLs).

lookup_hit has not been implemented yet. Volunteers welcome, but it may
be a good idea to finish the "cache" removal discussion first because it
may affect how lookup_hit is implemented.

>> A separate decision would be made whether to End-of-Life the existing
>> "cache" directive with its combined and overreaching side effects.
>>
>
> Okay. Separate patch for that part?

Yeah. None planned from me at this point, but I hope somebody will write
it once the discussion is over.

Thank you,

Alex.
Received on Wed Dec 18 2013 - 17:24:30 MST