httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Poirier <poir...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: caching partial repsonses
Date Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:41:02 GMT
On 2010-09-02 at 12:37, Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org> wrote:

> On 09/02/2010 04:09 PM, Dan Poirier wrote:
>> On 2010-07-11 at 01:40, niq@apache.org wrote:
>> 
>>> Author: niq
>>> Date: Sun Jul 11 05:40:27 2010
>>> New Revision: 962985
>>>  
>>>    * mod_disk_cache: Decline the opportunity to cache if the response is
>>>      a 206 Partial Content. This stops a reverse proxied partial response
>>> @@ -214,6 +225,9 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
>>>      Trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=951222&view=rev
>>>      2.2.x patch: http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/httpd-cache-partial-2.2.patch
>>>      +1: minfrin
>>> +    niq asks: I can see the logic of not cacheing partial responses,
>>> +    but why should mod_disk_cache worry about them if mod_cache allows
>>> +    them, as in the following proposal?
>>>  
>>>    *) mod_cache: Explicitly allow cache implementations to cache a 206 Partial
>>>       Response if they so choose to do so. Previously an attempt to cache a 206
>> 
>> I think right now mod_cache doesn't let any 206 responses get to the
>> cache backends, but if that change is made to let them by, then backends
>> that don't correctly implement caching of 206 responses will need to
>> decline to cache them themselves.
>> 
>> Which makes me wonder, won't other cache back-ends, like mod_mem_cache,
>> need the same change?
>
> Exactly, but mod_mem_cache is not on trunk any longer. So we cannot do
> a backport here, but must write a 2.2.x specific patch that is not on trunk.

True, but I think that's needed before we can backport the mod_cache
change being proposed here.

Dan


Mime
View raw message