DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG� RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34888>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND� INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34888 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-21 23:47 ------- As browsers use different headers for their reload operations we have to distinguish at least two cases here: Browser sents the following headers: 1. Pragma: no-cache Cache-Control: no-cache This is the case with lynx --reload and shift reload in Mozilla. 2. Cache-Control: max-age=0 This is the case when the reload button is pressed in Mozilla. Regarding 1. This has been fixed in the trunk by revision 156480. The fixes are in mod_cache.c and cache_util.c. Before the CACHE_SAVE filter was not added in this case. In 2.0.54 the comments in cache_util.c in lines 555 - 558 do not match the code. Regarding 2. This is a regression since 2.0.53 where many fixes to mod_cache have been backported. It works in 2.0.52. This regression was introduced in cache_util.c by revisision 105236 and fixed by revision 156401 (trunk). As far as I understand RFC 2616 both cases (at least 2.) break RFC compliance of mod_cache. Thus I think the according fixes from the trunk should be backported. Meanwhile I checked with Felix again and the attached quick and dirty backport should be some first aid. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
