Re: Patch to add netfilter mark support

On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 23:06 +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> > >
> > >> * I find the terminology inconsistent and confusing: outgoing,
> > >> clientside, upstream. No wonder you have to explain the difference
> > >> twice. Unless these are all standard RFC-like terms, please use
> > >> something consistent like fromClient, toClient, fromServer, toServer.
> > >> Others may suggest a better scheme, but this one at least does not
> > >> require constant doc lookups to understand where "out" and "up" is.
> > >
> > > Agreed. This confusion is also present in the names of the configuration
> > > parameters: initially I found the current ones confusing (it took me a
> > > while to realise that one was server side and one client side).
> > >
> > > At the minute they are tcp_outgoing_tos and clientside_tos. Would there
> > > be any objection to changing the tcp_outgoing_tos to serverside_tos? Or
> > > would you prefer not to break existing squid.conf configurations?
> >
> > IMHO, both: Change the documented/primary option names but accept the
> > old ones with a "deprecated" warning. There may even be a built-in
> > mechanism for that (multiple NAME values?), but I am not sure.
>
> Ah yes, you can specify multiple NAME values. Funnily enough, this is
> already the case for tcp_outgoing_tos, which is also known as
> tcp_outgoing_ds and tcp_outgoing_dscp. The disadvantage of this is that
> it doesn't display a deprecated warning.
>
> > You probably want to wait for others to comment before changing
> > squid.conf option names though.
>
> How about I change the "default" name to serverside_tos, and leave
> tcp_outgoing_tos with tcp_outgoing_ds and tcp_outgoing_dscp as an
> accepted name?

Or maybe they should be serverside_outgoing_tos and
clientside_outgoing_tos to make it even clearer?

Andy
Received on Mon Sep 06 2010 - 22:13:32 MDT