On 5/17/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't want to pick on you, but ironically it was you who introduced this :-) (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=152973).
Oh, it probably was. What can I say? I'm less stupid now. =)
Ok. So we should remove the apr_rfc822_date(expire_hdr, exp); apr_table_set(r->headers_out, "Expires", expire_hdr); lines there.
See the patch I just posted - we should also remove the Date manipulation too, IMO.
Just for clarification: It is still ok for us to define an cache internal expiration date (default / calculated) if there is nothing valid (max-age, Expires) in the response, right?
Yes.
We just do not tell the client about it as we do not adjust the headers in the response accordingly.
Exactly.
BTW: What about s-max-age here? Shouldn't we use s-maxage instead of max-age in the case it is present in the response?
Probably. I've only dug into the max-age case so far - I haven't chased down the semantics for us supporting s-maxage yet. Though max-age is explicitly called out as an explicit expiration time, while s-maxage isn't. Again, I'd need to refresh in my head what s-maxage is for... -- justin
