Adrian Chadd wrote:
> Hence why i implemented it as an internal URL rather than a
> cachemgr option.
More or less the same thing, less security, less supportive framework. Not sure
it is such a good approach.
What we need to decide upon is if we want these active actions over HTTP, or on
a separate channel.
> Agreed. However, after playing around with this, I actually like
> the idea of doing it via internal URLs. I think its extensible enough,
> and its a target for fine-grain ACL controls via the normal ACLs,
> rather than having to recode new ones.
I agree that having the actions over HTTP is nice indeed, but if we are I think
the cachemgr interface is the correct place to stick them.
--
Henrik
Received on Thu Sep 13 2001 - 04:51:25 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:20 MST