Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 64210 invoked by uid 500); 9 May 2000 01:50:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 64194 invoked from network); 9 May 2000 01:50:44 -0000 X-Authentication-Warning: cms2.cern.ch: kholtman owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 03:50:12 +0200 (MET DST) From: Koen Holtman X-Sender: kholtman@cms2 To: new-httpd@apache.org cc: Koen Holtman Subject: Re: Bala's papers on HTTP/1.1 compliance (fwd) In-Reply-To: <200005081742.aa11987@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 8 May 2000, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > >I also seem to recall that if mod_expires is enabled, Expires: >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.