On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 13:54 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 07:37 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > > > For the "no proxy configured" or the "manual proxy configured" cases, we > > would want the app to cache the results. getProxy() could return a > > boolean "cacheable" field. If set to true, the app will not call > > getProxy() again until a "ProxySettingsChanged" signal is emitted. In > > that case, WPAD/PAC would always return cacheable == false and > > manual/none would always return cacheable == true. > > > > A lot of this comes from the fact that PAC/WPAD are completely and utter > > crack and, while I would love to just ignore them, they are *widely* > > deployed. > > > > Thoughts? > > Cacheable is not good enough i think. I think we could try to return as > much information we can about the cacheability. Something like "Cache > this value for this uri", "Cache this value for this server", "Cache > this value for all http requests", etc. We could also have a signal you > could listen to to invalidate the cache (for when we change network, or > when the proxy settings change). > > I don't know exactly what kind of info we can figure out, but at the > very least we should be able to handle the cases you mention above.
direct/none == "always cache" manual == "cache for this protocol" (ie. http/https/ftp) PAC/WPAD == "never cache" The reason you never cache for PACs is that they are sometimes used for load balancing, timed access (ie. 8-5), etc. Yes, horrible I know. I'm down with a cacheability flag though. Nathaniel _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
