Skip to content
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

Added support for blacklisting paths for caching #63

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

dmattia
Copy link
Contributor

@dmattia dmattia commented Jan 9, 2020

This is related to #62

@dmattia dmattia force-pushed the dmattia/ordered_cache branch 3 times, most recently from 73c7231 to bea27ec Compare January 9, 2020 23:31
@dmattia dmattia force-pushed the dmattia/ordered_cache branch from bea27ec to b9f9f23 Compare January 9, 2020 23:43
@aknysh
Copy link
Member

aknysh commented Jan 12, 2020

@dmattia thanks for the PR.
I think it would be better to provide an cache_behaviors var and then contract ordered_cache_behavior block from it.
Otherwise we are using that block just for blacklisting, which applies to a limited set of use-cases.

@dmattia
Copy link
Contributor Author

dmattia commented Jan 13, 2020

I can make that change! I'd love to talk about your opinions on the var types though.

The default_cache and ordered_caches are almost entirely the same, except the default cache doesn't have a path option (at least that's my understanding).

So my thought was that we would leave the existing cache vars as they are, updating their docs to specify that they are only for the default cache. And then the ordered_caches would have a var.ordered_cache_behaviors where clients would have to pass in a large array of object with fields related to caching stuffs.

So basically what you said, but with var.ordered_cache_behaviors instead of var.cache_behaviors. Does that sound okay?

@dmattia
Copy link
Contributor Author

dmattia commented Jan 21, 2020

I created #70 to more generally support ordered caches

@dmattia
Copy link
Contributor Author

dmattia commented Jan 21, 2020

I believe it would be possible to support both PRs, but will leave it up to you guys to determine if you think that would be too much

@maximmi
Copy link
Contributor

maximmi commented Feb 24, 2020

@dmattia let's stick to more general way! thanks for your contribution

@maximmi maximmi closed this Feb 24, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants