Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: cache: the store_body interface
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:47:46 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <F6E88684A95CDB4DBBD5B9F4C1C4B09B020EB5F2@vis01-mx02.vis.internal.vodafone.com>
Thread-Topic: Re: cache: the store_body interface
Thread-Index: Acb8/2RNMZdTTqi4RnWKBSFjkHxn5AABDKXQ
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pl=FCm=2C_R=FCdiger=2C_VF_EITO?=
 <ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>


> Von: =20
>  Justin Erenkrantz
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 31. Oktober 2006 16:15
> An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: cache: the store_body interface
>=20
>=20
> On 10/31/06, Pl=FCm, R=FCdiger, VF EITO=20
> <ruediger.pluem@vodafone.com> wrote:
> > That seems to be an important point to me. Although I never used
> > the fd caching of mod_mem_cache this would mean we actually would
> > have to dump this feature. This looks bad to me. Isn't this=20
> a showstopper
> > for implementing #3 as new interface?
>=20
> Honestly, mod_mem_cache is a complete joke.  It's never worked

I am not quite sure if Bill (not other Bill) shares this point of view =
:-).

Regards

R=FCdiger