Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 15103 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2010 06:49:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 3 Sep 2010 06:49:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 6646 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2010 06:49:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 6285 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2010 06:49:44 -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 6277 invoked by uid 99); 3 Sep 2010 06:49:43 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:49:43 +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; Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:49:42 +0000 Received: (qmail 15065 invoked by uid 2161); 3 Sep 2010 06:49:22 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by euler.heimnetz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A9324044 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:49:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C809A89.7010805@apache.org> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:49:45 +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> <20100902180122.59f4cd3e@baldur> <55EA49ED-AAA0-46F0-B1CB-E6301B9908F5@sharp.fm> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 09/03/2010 02:13 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 03 Sep 2010, at 12:53 AM, Nick Kew wrote: > >> I disagree about 'broken': a cache isn't *required* to cache ranges. > > I definitely agree that a cache isn't required to cache ranges, but > right now mod_cache actively forbids the caching of ranges by an > implementation, and that's the behaviour that's currently broken. > >> As for third-party backends, this change is at serious risk of breaking >> anything that has (perfectly reasonably) ignored range responses. >> Fine for trunk, but not for a stable branch. Good catch Nick. > > Good point, in that case I withdraw the backport, this makes sense. But in this case we should backport https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=933919 to fix PR49113, which would have been fixed by other means by Grahams backport proposal. Regards Rüdiger