Forum Discussion
Matt_Breedlove_
Jun 06, 2011Nimbostratus
Continued irule exection paste pool command
I realise that if the pool command is issued in an irule, it must be followed by a 'return', if conditions/pool commands follow in latter logic that could also include the current connection, but why is this in term of use cases?
In almost all irule usage in my experience the "pool" command is either in a chained logic command or at the logical end of the irule anyway, so this almost never comes up as "pool' is at the "end" if its used in an irule, but in a small percentage of cases, this becomes significant where the last logical "pool" overrides the first, necessitating the "return" after the first.
If evaluating an irule on a current connection or request, once a pool command is issued, shouldn't the irule stop evaluation with an implicit meta return/event disable all? What kind of situation would require the need to not have this?
Thanks
M
- hooleylistCirrostratusHi Matt,
- Colin_Walker_12Historic F5 AccountAaron's exactly right. It's to allow greater flexibility with the language to account for more possible use cases. Is there a particular use case where this is tripping you up that we might be able to offer advice or a solution for?
- Matt_Breedlove_NimbostratusThat makes sense, didn't have a problem in mind. Usually I stay within the event confines irule usage wise of http_request, http_response, client_accepted, and rule_init...so it's no wonder I wouldn't see the value for cases where other events are being leveraged that I don't need/use/know about.
Recent Discussions
Related Content
DevCentral Quicklinks
* Getting Started on DevCentral
* Community Guidelines
* Community Terms of Use / EULA
* Community Ranking Explained
* Community Resources
* Contact the DevCentral Team
* Update MFA on account.f5.com
Discover DevCentral Connects