httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niklas Edmundsson <>
Subject Re: [PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used (fwd)
Date Wed, 10 Oct 2007 08:27:19 GMT

I think that this discussion kind of got lost due to vacations or 

In any case, I'd really like to get some closure.

The discussion starts here for those of you that has deleted the 
(the permalink doesn't seem to show the nifty thread list, you have to 
click a bit for that).

What I'd like answered is:
- Was the latest patch as suggested OK?
- What's the correct way of getting the mod_cache configuration from
   the mod_disk_cache module?

  Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}      |
  Operator...give me the no for 999, QUICK!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Niklas Edmundsson <>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:28:48 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used
X-Bogosity: Unsure, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000, version=0.96.2

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:

Any opinions on this?

>>>> Here's a version with a config directive, defaults to disabled.
>>> Silly Q; a directive?  Or a env var that can be scoped in interesting
>>> ways using mod_setenvif and/or mod_rewrite?
>>> Most of our proxy behavior overrides are in terms of envvars.  They are
>>> much more flexible to being tuned per-browser, per-backend etc.
>> Directive, envvar, I don't think Niklas cares much.  Can we make up our
>> mind please?
> I have no clue on the envvar-stuff, so I don't think I'm qualified to have an 
> opinion. CacheIgnoreCacheControl et al are config directives currently and I 
> have the gut feeling that they should all either be envvar-thingies or config 
> directives, and that starting to mix stuff will only end in confusion and 
> despair ;)
> I prefer a config-option that I can set serverwide without too much fuss 
> since we want this behaviour on all files. If this can also be accomplished 
> with envvar-stuff then sure.
> One way might be to do a config directive for now, and deal with the 
> envvar-stuff separately.
> Related, this config option might also be of interest for mod_disk_cache to 
> enable similar optimizations. What would the "good" way be to accomplish 
> this?
> /Nikke

  Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}      |
  Now, what was that magic word? Shazam? <WHAM!> Nah - Garibaldi

View raw message