Joshua Slive wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 9:38 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It depends if you need it only for the server configuration, or for
dir_config;
In the latter case, you don't have another choice, you just NEED the +-
--On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:47 AM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Time to define the exact directive and names?
I'd start with all of the directive that mod_cache currently exposes that
are binary (on/off).
At a quick glance, that looks like CacheIgnoreCacheControl,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:47 AM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Time to define the exact directive and names?
I'd start with all of the directive that mod_cache currently exposes that
are binary (on/off).
At a quick glance, that looks like
--On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 7:42 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's all?!
Let me quote myself (and this is not the complete list):
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth,
Eli Marmor wrote:
[..cut..]
In addition, the entity must be updated to contain more attributes of
the request (args, POST args, cookies, etc.). And to find it fast, the
key generated by cache_generate_key must be based on more things (such
as args). Because sometimes a dynamic site may have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eli Marmor wrote:
[..cut..]
In addition, the entity must be updated to contain more attributes of
the request (args, POST args, cookies, etc.). And to find it fast, the
key generated by cache_generate_key must be based on more things (such
as args).
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:57:55AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
Currently CacheIgnoreCacheControl On only ignores Cache-Control: no-cache
and Pragma: no-cache. I'd like to add ignoring Cache-Control: max-age=...
and Cache-Control: min-fresh=... as well.
This would
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:01:35PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
While I think this is a good idea, I'd like to consider renaming this
particular directive as I think the name is really confusing.
Does that mean you want me to hold off on committing this patch pending
a directive rename?
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:01:35PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
While I think this is a good idea, I'd like to consider renaming this
particular directive as I think the name is really confusing.
Does that mean you want me to hold off on committing this patch
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It's just that you brought up the point
of making the directive more intuitive - and I have problems from the word go
on this particular directive being intuitive. It's not.
In order to understand what this directive does, you need to know what
Cache-Control from the RFC
Eli Marmor wrote:
[...]
CacheForOffline? (or Cache4Offline)
Offline browsing is the main case where you need such absolute caching.
But it requires you to cache EVERYTHING. Including dynamic content, and
even different content according to different POST input. Maybe two
directives are needed,
Sander Striker wrote:
Eli Marmor wrote:
[...]
CacheForOffline? (or Cache4Offline)
Offline browsing is the main case where you need such absolute caching.
But it requires you to cache EVERYTHING. Including dynamic content, and
even different content according to different POST input.
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth, GET args, private, public, must-revalidate, maxage, etc.).
My idea was
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth, GET args, private, public,
Eli Marmor wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth, GET args,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
CacheOptions +StorePrivate +IgnoreClientControl +IgnoreServerControl
+CachePOST +CacheAuth
CacheOptions +all
CacheOptions -all
I suggest avoiding the +/- syntax which has proven confusing to many
users and adds very little in functionality. Just use
CacheOptions
Joshua Slive wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
CacheOptions +StorePrivate +IgnoreClientControl +IgnoreServerControl
+CachePOST +CacheAuth
CacheOptions +all
CacheOptions -all
I suggest avoiding the +/- syntax which has proven confusing to many
users and adds very little in
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 9:38 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It depends if you need it only for the server configuration, or for
dir_config;
In the latter case, you don't have another choice, you just NEED the +-
Actually, cache can't respect any dir config's (because it is a
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 9:38 PM +0200 Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It depends if you need it only for the server configuration, or for
dir_config;
In the latter case, you don't have another choice, you just NEED the +-
Actually, cache can't respect any dir
19 matches
Mail list logo
