On 5/24/07, Niklas Edmundsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> tis 2007-05-22 klockan 11:40 +0200 skrev Niklas Edmundsson:
>
>> ---------8<-----------
>> Does anybody see a problem with changing mod_cache to not update the
>> stored headers when the request has max-age=0, the body turns out not
>> to be stale and the on-disk header hasn't expired?
>> ---------8<-----------
>
> My understanding:
>
> It's fine in an RFC point of view for the cache to completely ignore a
> 304 and not update the stored entity at all. But the response to this
> request should be the merge of the two responses assuming the
> conditional was added by the cache.
This is in line with my understanding, and since the response-merging
is being done today the only change that would be done is to skip
storing the header to disk. I think it would be wise to only skip the
storing for the max-age=0 case though.
Why limit it to the the max-age=0 case? Isn't it a general improvement?
Sander
