"Routing Disabled" Doesn't Really Make Sense on Profiles

[ocket8888]

The disabling of routing to a particular server ought to be constrained to either server objects, or possibly on the routers themselves. It's unintuitive to have this as a field on objects that may or may not be servers - and even then may or may not actually make use of this, since it only affect ATS servers.

[rob05c]

+1

The right solution is to make a new table, either cache_server or cache_profile (possibly both), which only applies to caches (you say ATS, but I think this field applies to any cache, yes?). Then, fields in that table will only apply to caches, and can only be added to "server" endpoints which are caches, and likewise only be displayed in the UI for cache servers.

There are many fields, both untyped as parameters, and in the servers table, which should then be moved to the new cache_server table.

This will make our data more relational, and make whole classes of bugs impossible, increasing the stability of the system.