httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Stoddard <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/experimental cache_storage.c cache_util.c mod_cache.c mod_cache.h mod_disk_cache.c mod_mem_cache.c
Date Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:24:21 GMT
Graham Leggett wrote:

> Bill Stoddard wrote:
> 
>>> Stale objects are discarded and fetched from the origin server.
> 
> 
>> So we're missing all the code to handle RFC 2616 section 13.3. We're 
>> not violating the RFC but our cache is sure not as efficient as possible.
> 
> 
> What the CACHE_CONDITIONAL filter did was say "if the cached response is 
> stale, change this request to a conditional request by adding 
> If-None-Match. If I get a 304 back, then serve my cached copy, it is 
> fresh. If I get a 200 back (or something else), throw away my cached 
> copy and serve the new 200 content instead".
> 
> If the CACHE_CONDITIONAL filter is the wrong way to go about this, what 
> is the correct way to go about this?
> 
> So far simplifying the code is nice, but if "simplifying" means "ignore 
> part of the RFC", then we're moving backwards. :(
> 
> Regards,
> Graham
> -- 


Yea, I agree we lost some good function in the CACHE_CONDITIONAL filter. Here is Justin's
explanation:

" Also, remove the broken conditional filter code as you can't reliably alter the
   filter list once the response is started.  (Regardless, cache_select_url()
   has the freshness checks now.)"

Looking at adding the function back in.

Bill

Mime
View raw message