Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 72168 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2010 16:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2010 16:37:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 18281 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2010 16:37:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 18060 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2010 16:37:29 -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 18052 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2010 16:37:29 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:37:29 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.9] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:37:28 +0000 Received: (qmail 72134 invoked by uid 2161); 2 Sep 2010 16:37:08 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by euler.heimnetz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 900E024044 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 18:37:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C7FD2CE.50205@apache.org> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:37:34 +0200 From: Ruediger Pluem User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100301 SeaMonkey/1.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: caching partial repsonses References: <20100711054027.9790F2388999@eris.apache.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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. Regards RĂ¼diger