httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject Re: mod_include heuristic
Date Tue, 22 Jul 1997 18:08:56 GMT
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Rob Hartill wrote:

> What's to say that /foo.html isn't being updated by an external program -
> a setup I make use of.

Then /foo.html's time stamp is going to change.

"truly static" means:
- no echos
- include virtual, if I can determine that it's a recursive mod_include
  invocation, probably not
- include file -- note it will use the timestamp on all files
- no conditionals
- no variable expansion
- no exec

It's a really cheap heuristic.  Aimed at public sites that make
mod_include run all html files. 

> mod_expires does work well with caches.

Yes, and I can count the number of North American sites with admins that
are clued or conscientious enough to turn it on on the fingers of one
hand.  Ok maybe two hands.  I'm aiming for a solution that can be enabled
by default. 

Even hotwired doesn't use expires because I found it too complicated with
the way their prod process works to put something reasonable together.  I
also couldn't justify the time spent to integrate it into the production
process because the powers that be didn't understand the need for it. 

> > (Plus even Content-Lengths.)  This eliminates much of the need for
> > XBitHack, certainly enough that we don't have to consider other extensions
> > to it. 
> 
> There are practical ways to work around XBitHack and be cache-friendly.

Yes, see my last comment.  I want something that is enabled by default... 

Dean



Mime
View raw message