httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Koen Holtman <Koen.Holt...@cern.ch>
Subject Re: Bala's papers on HTTP/1.1 compliance (fwd)
Date Tue, 09 May 2000 01:50:12 GMT


On Mon, 8 May 2000, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> >I also seem to recall that if mod_expires is enabled, Expires: <date in
> >future> will be added even to some 'dynamic' responses (produced by other
> >modules) that should really be uncacheable as far as the other module is
> >concerned. This is less of a 1.1 compliance issue as it is one in which a
> >certain configuration setting has compliant but unintentional side
> >effects. 
> 
> That is a feature.  Seriously, that is one of the reasons that mod_expires
> exists -- to give the content provider a means of making their dynamic
> content more cachable than it is by default.

One man's feature..

I seem to recall that mod_expires will label both dynamic and static pages
in exactly the same way.   So it gets kind of procrustean.

The problem scenario in my mind is when server administrator configures
expires for a whole directory subtree, thinking about all the (static
page) files in there, while forgetting for the moment that there are a few
(CGI or whatever) scripts in the tree too. 


> 
> ....Roy
> 

Koen.



Mime
View raw message