On 01/23/2017 12:18 PM, Alexander wrote: > 2017-01-23 21:41 GMT+03:00 Alex Rousskov: > It is possible that Squid needs a knob to handle your use > case differently. However, I am pretty sure that somebody does want > Squid to do what it does know so we should not change Squid behavior to > satisfy your use case. Clarification: ... should not satisfy your use case alone (i.e., at the expense of the other known use case). It is perfectly fine to change Squid to satisfy more than one legitimate use case, of course. > I understand that, however the first and foremost reason I asked the > question was that my use case pretends to be pretty typical :) That may be true, but please keep in mind that: a) The "whole message or nothing" principle is fairly fundamental to Squid and correctly accommodating exceptions to that principle may be difficult, on many levels. b) Native FTP relaying is a very recent feature so any "lots of Squid users need FTP relay to do X" argument can be paired with "the vast and increasing majority of Squid users do need FTP relay at all, so FTP code should not inconvenience the other code much" argument followed by the same "whole message or nothing" principle discussed earlier. Neither (a) nor (b) means that your use case should not be supported, one way or the other. I am just cautioning against a rushed judgment to change Squid without thinking of other users and long-term effects/consequences. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
