httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Werner Baumann <werner.baum...@onlinehome.de>
Subject Re: thoughts on ETags and mod_dav
Date Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:54:06 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> If the weak etags are not being matched to the string etags on
> GET, then that is another bug that must be fixed.  It is not an
> excuse to ignore the HTTP design.
>
This is a new aspect. I always thought it was intended behaviour, that 
weak etags (in Apache) will *never match*. And therefore thought it a 
waste of time to calculate a string that will never be used. If the 
intention was, that the weak etag will match on conditional (full body) 
GET requests, this will change the discussion.
But still: Wouldn't in this case Last-Modified-Date be the better, more 
efficient and less confusing choice of weak validator?

Henrik Nordström wrote:
 > lör 2007-12-29 klockan 20:56 +0100 skrev Werner Baumann:
 >
 >> Objections:
 >> - Squid seems not to take any information from the Etag.
 >
 > Yes it does. It uses the ETag as an resource variant identifier.
 >
Is this true. Is there no way for a cache to uniquely identify variants, 
but using the cache validator? Isn't this a flaw in the protocol?

Cheers
Werner


Mime
View raw message