Mailing List Archive

Does this little flow-graph make sense ?

http://phk.freebsd.dk/misc/vcl.pdf

The three boxes are the three places where VCL code gets involved and
the contents of the boxes is the default VCL code.


--
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.

>
> Does this little flow-graph make sense ?
>
> http://phk.freebsd.dk/misc/vcl.pdf
>
> The three boxes are the three places where VCL code gets involved and
> the contents of the boxes is the default VCL code.

Great.

Yes, this makes sense. 2 questions:

1. From box 2 you have a error "arrow", is this for when a request is like
"GET /%#!! HTTP/1.0" <- chars that are not allowed?
2. The "Pass HTTP request to backend" points to "Request completed" when
there is a pass. Is this done just to simplify the flow-graph? Varnish
would get involved in delivering back the document anyway. This maybe
outside the scope of the flow-graph, but I thought I'd point it out
anyway.

Other that that, I find it a correct representation of what we have
discussed so far.

Anders Berg

>
> Does this little flow-graph make sense ?
>
> http://phk.freebsd.dk/misc/vcl.pdf
>
> The three boxes are the three places where VCL code gets involved and
> the contents of the boxes is the default VCL code.

Great.

Yes, this makes sense. 2 questions:

1. From box 2 you have a error "arrow", is this for when a request is like
"GET /%#!! HTTP/1.0" <- chars that are not allowed?
2. The "Pass HTTP request to backend" points to "Request completed" when
there is a pass. Is this done just to simplify the flow-graph? Varnish
would get involved in delivering back the document anyway. This maybe
outside the scope of the flow-graph, but I thought I'd point it out
anyway.

Other that that, I find it a correct representation of what we have
discussed so far.

Anders Berg

In message <1434.193.213.34.102.1144794854.squirrel at denise.vg.no>, "Anders Berg" write
s:

>Yes, this makes sense. 2 questions:
>
>1. From box 2 you have a error "arrow", is this for when a request is like
>"GET /%#!! HTTP/1.0" <- chars that are not allowed?

It indicates what happens if the VCL code executes an "error" statement.

In the default code we don't use that, but the user might in
customized VCL code.

>2. The "Pass HTTP request to backend" points to "Request completed" when
>there is a pass. Is this done just to simplify the flow-graph?

A better wording would be "pass-through" I guess. Yes, Vanish is
handling the data forth and back, but is only acting like a relay,
it doesn't inspect the transaction further.

>Other that that, I find it a correct representation of what we have
>discussed so far.

Great, lets see if I can get it to work then ;-)

--
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.

In message <1434.193.213.34.102.1144794854.squirrel at denise.vg.no>, "Anders Berg" write
s:

>Yes, this makes sense. 2 questions:
>
>1. From box 2 you have a error "arrow", is this for when a request is like
>"GET /%#!! HTTP/1.0" <- chars that are not allowed?

It indicates what happens if the VCL code executes an "error" statement.

In the default code we don't use that, but the user might in
customized VCL code.

>2. The "Pass HTTP request to backend" points to "Request completed" when
>there is a pass. Is this done just to simplify the flow-graph?

A better wording would be "pass-through" I guess. Yes, Vanish is
handling the data forth and back, but is only acting like a relay,
it doesn't inspect the transaction further.

>Other that that, I find it a correct representation of what we have
>discussed so far.

Great, lets see if I can get it to work then ;-)

--
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.