httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Issac Goldstand <>
Subject Re: mod_cache responsibilities vs mod_xxx_cache provider responsibilities
Date Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:08:16 GMT
This looks familiar.  I seem to remembering seeing patches for this a
few months back.   Were they not committed to trunk?  If not, is there
any reason why not?  I'd hate to spend serious time making modifications
only to have to redo the work when this (pretty major) patchset gets


Davi Arnaut wrote:
> On 13/09/2006, at 16:29, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>   I've been hacking at mod_cache a bit, and was surprised to find that
>> part of the decision to serve previously cached content or not was being
>> made by the backend provider and not mod_cache; specifically, the
>> expiration date of the content seems to be checked by mod_disk_cache (as
>> part of open_entity), and if the provider check fails, mod_cache doesn't
>> even know about the entity (and therefore, in the case of a caching
>> proxy,  can't treat it as a possibly stale entity upon which it can just
>> do a conditional GET and possibly get a 304, rather than requiring
>> mod_proxy to rerequest the entire entity again).
>> When I originally started looking at the family of cache modules, I
>> assumed that all of the decision-making logic would be in mod_cache,
>> while the mod_xxx_cache providers would be "dumb" file-stores (at least,
>> as far as mod_cache is concerned).  Is this not the case?
> I'm working on this. You may want to check my proposal at
>> If it is, would patches be acceptable if I have the time to try to
>> rectify the situation (at least somewhat)?
> I'm still working on it, things may change radically.
> -- 
> Davi Arnaut

View raw message