Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 89084 invoked from network); 2 Sep 2010 22:54:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 2 Sep 2010 22:54:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 39658 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2010 22:54:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 39594 invoked by uid 500); 2 Sep 2010 22:54:22 -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 39586 invoked by uid 99); 2 Sep 2010 22:54:22 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:54:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [80.229.52.226] (HELO freya.local) (80.229.52.226) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:54:00 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freya.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F6BF245A47 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2010 23:53:39 +0100 (BST) References: <20100711054027.9790F2388999@eris.apache.org> <20100902180122.59f4cd3e@baldur> <55EA49ED-AAA0-46F0-B1CB-E6301B9908F5@sharp.fm> In-Reply-To: <55EA49ED-AAA0-46F0-B1CB-E6301B9908F5@sharp.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Nick Kew Subject: Re: caching partial repsonses Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 23:53:38 +0100 To: dev@httpd.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 2 Sep 2010, at 18:20, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 02 Sep 2010, at 7:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: >=20 >> Indeed. I guess my comment in STATUS was down to reviewing that >> backport proposal (and checking the RFC) before I saw the other one. >>=20 >> I guess the real question is: why enable it in the abstract, in the >> absence of a backend implementation? Surely there's no backend >> that's going to be simpler to support ranges in than plain ol' disk? >=20 > mod_cache.h exports a public provider interface, allowing external = parties to write implementations of their own that are distributed = separately from the httpd server. >=20 > It is broken for mod_cache to dictate to an external implementation = that it is forbidden from caching partial responses, when the caching of = partial responses is allowed by RFC2616. I disagree about 'broken': a cache isn't *required* to cache ranges. 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. --=20 Nick Kew=