Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 17267 invoked from network); 24 May 2007 08:23:55 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 May 2007 08:23:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 10398 invoked by uid 500); 24 May 2007 08:23:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 10334 invoked by uid 500); 24 May 2007 08:23:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 10323 invoked by uid 99); 24 May 2007 08:23:55 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 01:23:54 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.249.92.170] (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.170) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 01:23:49 -0700 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id t39so81016ugd for ; Thu, 24 May 2007 01:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.123.16 with SMTP id v16mr2697900buc.1179995006967; Thu, 24 May 2007 01:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.82.134.18 with HTTP; Thu, 24 May 2007 01:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:23:26 +0200 From: "Sander Striker" To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: mod_cache: Don't update when req max-age=0? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <24AFAF74-8674-434E-A804-79787466339C@gbiv.com> <1179853678.10616.14.camel@henriknordstrom.net> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 5/24/07, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > > tis 2007-05-22 klockan 11:40 +0200 skrev Niklas Edmundsson: > > > >> ---------8<----------- > >> Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update the > >> stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns out not > >> to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired? > >> ---------8<----------- > > > > My understanding: > > > > It's fine in an RFC point of view for the cache to completely ignore a > > 304 and not update the stored entity at all. But the response to this > > request should be the merge of the two responses assuming the > > conditional was added by the cache. > > This is in line with my understanding, and since the response-merging > is being done today the only change that would be done is to skip > storing the header to disk. I think it would be wise to only skip the > storing for the max-age=0 case though. Why limit it to the the max-age=0 case? Isn't it a general improvement? Sander