Why named shared memory zones

[Marcus Clyne]

Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Speaking particularly about proxy_cache_path:
>
> There was at least 2 changes in it's arguments since introduction.
> With current syntax it was hardly even noticeable.  With proposed 
> "short" notation it would likely require each and every config 
> rewrite or introduction of another directive (with 
> proxy_cache_path left as legacy).
>   
Well actually I'd say that re-writes of configurations in general would 
be required, with one notable exception, no more than if you use 
key/value pairs.  If you're adding options, then you don't need to 
change the order, and just add the options onto the end.  If you drop an 
option, then you'd need to change the config anyway.  The only real 
problem with changes is if an option were dropped, and the ordering of 
the options were such that an old configuration could be interpreted as 
a new configuration without errors, but with unintended behaviour.  I 
think this case would be rare, though.
> Maxim Dounin
>
> p.s. I understand that you want to do things better.  But 
> suggested change is bad.  Really.
>   
Maybe.  I totally understand where you're coming from, and I'm torn 
between the two options, but I still feel the shorter syntax is nicer.

Of course the advantage of OS software is that I can go and write a 
patch if I want to do things differently.

Thanks Igor and Maxim for taking the time to share your views on this.

Marcus.