-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[WIP] Add Varnishadm CLI client #231
base: 3.x
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
{ | ||
|
||
} | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure yet whether we should support multiple servers in the VarnishAdmin
class itself, or wrap them in a separate class such as this VarnishAdminMultiple
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looking at VarnishAdmin, i wonder if we should have a VarnishCli class that wraps the socket connection. then VarnishAdmin would become a lot simpler, and having multiple Cli instances would become simpler. if we keep it the way we currently have it, having a separate wrapper to multiplex seems better to me.
very cool! my main question at this point is whether we could move the code dealing with sockets and sprintf-ing commands into a VarnishCli class to better separate the concerns. |
We can add a Do you mean a |
Do you mean a |VarnishAdmin| that wraps multiple |VarnishCli|s for
talking to multiple servers?
yes. having a VarnishCli would clearly separate what is the logic to
talk to cli and what is our domain logic of the caching proxy client.
the proxy client would handle several cli instances to multiplex to each
varnish.
|
rebased to get rid of the outdated php-http reference |
@ddeboer any chance you could wrap this up for 2.0? |
As this is no priority for myself now, I suggest to remove this from the 2.0 milestone so we can move forward on 2.0. I we can add this functionality on the 2.0 branch later on, that’s fine. If we need to break BC it can wait until 3.0 (for me). |
pitty, but i removed the milestone |
Fix #61.
X-Url
.PurgeInterface
or fake the purge by actually doing a ban whenpurge()
is called.