On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Joe Cooper wrote:
> Any reason there shouldn't be a second 'optional_include' or
> 'cache_dir_include' directive?
One primary reason: once you add optional_include, you will soon
discover that what you really need are:
optional_include_that_fails_only_if_the_file_is_not_parsable,
optional_include_that_fails_only_if_the_file_is_not_there,
optional_include_that_fails_only_if_the_disk_is_not_there,
optional_include_that_fails_if_it_5pm_and_load_is_high,
optional_include_that_fails_if_a_custom_script_fails,
optional_include_that_never_fails_but_notifies_root_of_any_problems,
etc.
Preprocessing and disk error handling, in general, require very
different context information and user interface. Integrating the two
may solve a couple of current custom problems, but will not satisfy
you long-term. Thus, IMO, it should not be supported.
Yes, I know that Squid tends to grow using "someone might need this"
principle. If the consensus is that this is desirable, optional
includes should be supported.
> I can't think of a simpler way to handle optional includes and
> mandatory includes (which I also think is a good idea to avoid
> lots of emails here on the list from folks who pay no attention to
> their logs). But maybe you guys can.--
A simpler way is to NOT have optional includes.
Alex.
Received on Mon Apr 01 2002 - 16:39:29 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:56 MST