Re: [PATCH] reply_from_cache and reply_to_cache

On 16/10/2013 5:13 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 10/14/2013 09:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>
>> I think store_miss and send_hit are the best out of those above.
>>
>> The naming of HIT directive is a bit tricky, but the above is no more or
>> less ambiguous than reply_from_cache.
>> Perhapse "lookup" or "find", "seek" , "search" somethign along those
>> lines? instead of send-hit or reply_from.
>>
>> cache_lookup allow/deny has a nice clear semantic to it.
>>
>> cache_store_miss
>>
>> Even cache_write / cache_read are somewhat close to the intended behaviour.
>
>
> I like "lookup" for point 1!
>
> Cache_store_miss for point 3 is usable, although having both "cache" and
> "store" words in there is far from ideal. Either "cache_miss" or
> "store_miss" would be better IMO.
>
> We still need send_hit or some such for decision point 2 though, as
> discussed earlier.
>
>
> I suggest a consistent verb+noun scheme:
>
> lookup_hit
> send_hit
> store_miss
>

Okay that set will do. I can live without the cache_ prefix as long as
it is consistently absent.

>
> A separate decision would be made whether to End-of-Life the existing
> "cache" directive with its combined and overreaching side effects.
>

Okay. Separate patch for that part?

Amos
Received on Thu Nov 21 2013 - 08:10:57 MST