On 13/09/2006, at 16:29, Issac Goldstand wrote:
Hi all,
I've been hacking at mod_cache a bit, and was surprised to find that
part of the decision to serve previously cached content or not was
being
made by the backend provider and not mod_cache; specifically, the
expiration date of the content seems to be checked by
mod_disk_cache (as
part of open_entity), and if the provider check fails, mod_cache
doesn't
even know about the entity (and therefore, in the case of a caching
proxy, can't treat it as a possibly stale entity upon which it can
just
do a conditional GET and possibly get a 304, rather than requiring
mod_proxy to rerequest the entire entity again).
When I originally started looking at the family of cache modules, I
assumed that all of the decision-making logic would be in mod_cache,
while the mod_xxx_cache providers would be "dumb" file-stores (at
least,
as far as mod_cache is concerned). Is this not the case?
I'm working on this. You may want to check my proposal at http://
verdesmares.com/Apache/proposal.txt
If it is, would patches be acceptable if I have the time to try to
rectify the situation (at least somewhat)?
http://verdesmares.com/Apache/patches/022.patch
I'm still working on it, things may change radically.
--
Davi Arnaut
