pagespeed-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Marantz <jmara...@google.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Emitting Cache-Control: immutable
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2017 14:30:41 GMT
This sounds like a reasonable idea to me.  I agree that .pagespeed. URLs
are a good candidate for this, as long as the hash is matching and
therefore we are sending 1-year caching directives.

However I'm confused why about why revalidation would be needed in such
cases, even without 'immutable', unless the item has been in cache for >1
year.


On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Otto van der Schaaf <oschaaf@we-amp.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to discuss emitting the "immutable" cache-control directive in
> responses for requests to .pagespeed. urls.
>
> After reading up on this fairly new cache-control directive, think we may
> be able to avoid revalidations by doing so.
> The RFC mentions versioned urls as a candidate for doing this, which I
> think also includes our fingerprinted .pagespeed. urls
> (these have a hash that changes when any of the underlying resources
> change)
>
> Rough implementation:
> https://github.com/pagespeed/mod_pagespeed/compare/oschaaf-
> cc-immutable?expand=1
>
> Context:
> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/01/using-immutable-
> caching-to-speed-up-the-web/
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8246
>
> Would love to hear thoughts on this!
>
> Otto
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message