httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Neil Gunton <n...@nilspace.com>
Subject Re: mod_proxy distinguish cookies?
Date Tue, 04 May 2004 03:14:02 GMT
Graham Leggett wrote:
> 
> Neil Gunton wrote:
> 
> > The problem now is that the browsers (IE and Mozilla at least) don't
> > seem to differentiate requests based on cookies. I have tested
> > requesting a page with a certain cookie (where the page has a sufficient
> > expiration to warrant being cached for the duration of the test), and
> > then changing the cookie, and re-requesting the same page as before. The
> > cookie is different, but the browsers still seem to use their local
> > cached copy of the page. So, I am currently thinking that the solution
> > to this is to use a combination of cookies and URL parameters to make
> > the requests look different.
> 
> Rather just use URL parameters. As I recall RFC2616 does not consider a
> request with a different cookie a different variant, so even if you
> patch your server to allow it to differentiate between cookies, neither
> the browsers nor the transparent proxies in the path of the request will
> do what you want them to do :(

Well, that truly sucks. If you pass options around in params then
whenever someone follows a link posted by someone else, they will
inherit that person's options. The only alternative might be to make
pages 'No-Cache' and then set the 'AccelIgnoreNoCache' mod_accel
directive (which I haven't tried, but I assume that's what it does)...
so even though my server will get hit a lot more, at least it might be
stopped by the proxy rather than hitting the mod_perl.

>From what you are saying, it would appear that HTTP is broken with
regard to cookies and caching. I thought they had all that sorted out a
while back. Never mind...

Thanks for the insight, I'll have to think about this some more it
seems. Either have extremely volatile options via URL params with page
caching, or no caching (outside of my server, which would mean a LOT
more traffic since every time someone hits 'Back' on their browser it
would think it had to re-get the page) and persistent options. Hmmm...

Any other ideas would be welcomed, but right now that's about all I can
think of...

Thanks again,

-Neil

Mime
View raw message