https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45341
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Hamblen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-07-13 14:44:20 PST --- (Jan does appear to be requesting also with a query string, http://server.aa/creative?bannerId=618167&seqNo=4&set=sec) Yes, that is the sequence I have figured. But I'm not sure that the 304 response without an Expires header is strictly erroneous. If that is clear in the protocol I can file it as a bug in Wicket instead of an improvement, but I haven't been able to find anything definitive. I don't see how a plain 304 "tells the cache that the cached response is unusable and needs to be ejected". The cache has asked the back end if the resource has changed since a date. The answer is no, and the cache would do better to serve what it has. Relaying the 304 brings about a definite client error condition that would not have occurred without the cache. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
