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 pending > > a directive rename? Isn't that a seperate issue? > > Nah, go ahead and commit if you like. 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 means - and that's not intuitive. I'd like > something that expresses the concept that we will serve cached content even if > the client asks for 'fresh' content. > > The closest I can come up with is 'CacheServeStale' - but that's not quite > right or even precise either.
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, one for using the cache only if the cookies are the same. All of that requires changing the caching mechanism to keep POST input, cookies, etc. I started to do it in the past, and planned to contribute it when it would be ready, but held on when the major modifications of mod_cache started. I think that Brian Akins made a similar patch too, and wanted to contribute it, but failed to pass CNN's lawyers. If I recall correctly, he volunteered to give tips. -- Eli Marmor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Netmask (El-Mar) Internet Technologies Ltd. __________________________________________________________ Tel.: +972-9-766-1020 8 Yad-Harutzim St. Fax.: +972-9-766-1314 P.O.B. 7004 Mobile: +972-50-5237338 Kfar-Saba 44641, Israel
