FYI: I recently had a long exchange with Microsoft's support regarding
the Vary header, and the outcome was that they have at least
*documented* their RFC2616 compliance issue:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824847
Best regards, Julian
--
green/bytes GmbH --
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I do wish people would read the specification to refresh their memory
before summarizing. RFC 2616 doesn't say anything about cookies -- it
doesn't have to because there are already several mechanisms for marking
a request or response as varying. In this case
Vary:
On Mon, 3 May 2004, Neil Gunton wrote:
Well, that truly sucks. If you pass options around in params then
whenever someone follows a link posted by someone else, they will
inherit that person's options. The only alternative might be to make
pages 'No-Cache' and then set the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this fellow were to simply 'stuff' his Cookie into the
'extra text' part of the User-Agent: string and send
out a Vary: User-Agent along with the response
then it would actually work the way he expects it too.
Thanks to Roy and Kevin for your insight. Sorry if this
Hi Neil...
This is Kevin Kiley...
Personally, I don't think this discussion is all that OT for
Apache but others might disagree.
"Vary:" is still a broken mess out there and if 'getting it right'
is still anyone's goal then these are the kinds of discussions
that need to take place SOMEWHERE.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bottom line:
In order to do your 'Cookie' scheme and have it work with
all major browsers you might have to give up on the idea
that the responses can EVER be 'cached' locally by
a browser... but now you also lose the ability to have
it cached by ANYONE.
There
Neil wrote...
Thanks again Kevin for the insight and interesting links. It seems to me
that there are basically three components here: My server, intermediate
caching proxies, and the end-user browser. From my understanding of the
discussion so far, each of these can be covered as follows:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MOST Proxy Cache Servers ( including ones that SAY they are
HTTP/1.1 compliant ) do NOT handle Vary: and they will simple
treat ANY response they get with a Vary: header of any kind
exactly the way MSIE seems to. They will treat it as if it was
Vary: * ( Vary: STAR )
Graham Leggett wrote:
I would disagree - if a proxy on the net cached every variant of every
page simply based on a cookie header, there would so many different
variants of the same page in the cache that from a system resource
perspective the cache might as well not be there. Cookies only
Neil Gunton wrote:
Is this really such a special case? I can't believe nobody else has
wanted to implement a server like this.
It's a special case in the context of all of the servers, proxies,
transparent proxies and browsers together out there on the net - it's
useful to take off the load of
Graham Leggett wrote:
There is already a mechanism for caching different variants of a page -
simply encode the info into the URL. This is supported on all browsers
and cannot be switched off through user preference (as cookies can).
Because a mechanism already exists, there isn't much point
Rather just use URL parameters. As I recall RFC2616 does not consider
a
request with a different cookie a different variant, so even if you
patch your server to allow it to differentiate between cookies,
neither
the browsers nor the transparent proxies in the path of the request
will
do what
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I do wish people would read the specification to refresh their memory
before summarizing. RFC 2616 doesn't say anything about cookies -- it
doesn't have to because there are already several mechanisms for marking
a request or response as varying. In this case
Vary:
Graham Leggett wrote:
Neil Gunton wrote:
The problem now is that the browsers (IE and Mozilla at least) don't
seem to differentiate requests based on cookies. I have tested
requesting a page with a certain cookie (where the page has a sufficient
expiration to warrant being cached for
Neil Gunton wrote:
The problem now is that the browsers (IE and Mozilla at least) don't
seem to differentiate requests based on cookies. I have tested
requesting a page with a certain cookie (where the page has a sufficient
expiration to warrant being cached for the duration of the test), and
Igor Sysoev wrote:
mod_accel ( http://sysoev.ru/en/ ) allows to take cookies into account while
caching:
AccelCacheCookie some_cookie_name another_cookie_name
You can set it on per-location basis.
Besides, my upcoming light-weight http and reverse proxy server nginx
will allow to do it too.
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Neil Gunton wrote:
Neil Gunton wrote:
Hi all,
I apologise in advance if this is obvious or otherwise been answered
elsewhere, but I can't seem to find any reference to it.
I am using Apache 1.3.29 with mod_perl, on Linux 2.4. I am running
mod_proxy as a
Neil Gunton wrote:
Hi all,
I apologise in advance if this is obvious or otherwise been answered
elsewhere, but I can't seem to find any reference to it.
I am using Apache 1.3.29 with mod_perl, on Linux 2.4. I am running
mod_proxy as a caching reverse proxy front end, and mod_perl on the
18 matches
Mail list logo
