httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <>
Subject Re: mod_proxy Cache-Control: no-cache=<directive> support Apache1.3
Date Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:29:10 GMT
Igor Sysoev wrote:

> The main reason why Squid is better than Apache is much lesser
> memory overhead per connection. And of course, Squid has many other
> proxing features - it's proxy, not webserver.

In my experience, use a proxy as a forward proxy (like Squid), and use a
webserver as a reverse proxy (like Apache).

> Do you mean that Squid returns cached gzipped content to client
> that does not send 'Accept-Encoding' ? mod_proxy 1.3.23 does the same.
> Would it be changed in 1.3.24 ?

It should not do - if it does, it's a bug.

> I live in real world and many webmasters are too. It's not always possible
> to redesign backend. Unfortunately while Internet boom too many brain-damaged
> solutions were born.

But Apache tries to be the reference implementation of HTTP/1.1.
Although there are features in Apache to compensate for client and
server brokenness, trying too hard to accomodate broken design allows
too many webmasters to get away with broken design. If the clients fixed
all server errors, why bother creating a server that meets spec?

> > Use the ProxyPreserveHost option.
> I suppose in 1.3.24 ?

Someone posted a patch a few weeks ago - no idea which versions it
appeared in, other than it's in the head of both 1.3 and 2.0.

> > The idea behind mod_cache was to separate the "send" threads from the
> > "receive" thread. This means that if a response is half-way downloaded,
> > and a new request comes in, the new request will be served from the
> > half-cached half-downloaded file, and not from a new request. When the
> > original request is finished, the backend is released, and the "receive"
> > threads carry on regardless.
> Would it be work in prefork MPM ?

The requirement would be based on the presence of shared memory, and
should work in all MPMs.

> > You should have created a separate module for this, and run it alongside
> > mod_accel. This can still be done though.
> I did not use mod_cgi and Java.

But other people do. If the busy locks logic was in it's own module,
there would be a lot more use for it out there.

> Your phrase is like 'mod_rewrite should be patched to do some SSI job'
> mod_rewrite works with URLs and filenames only. It can not change content.
> mod_randban changes content on the fly.

Then I misunderstood what you were trying to do - fiddling with content
on the fly is the job of a separate module entirely, probably a filter.
I thought you were manipulating URLs.

-----------------------------------------		"There's a moon
					over Bourbon Street
View raw message