On 04 Jun 2010, at 4:15 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group wrote:
IMHO it does not (at least according to the comments and the code
looks like
to follow these):
This is only present on trunk, and this needs to be fixed too. The
problem we saw was in httpd v2.2.
implementation (mod_disk_cache) to decide whether it wants to
handle a
206 or not.
mod_cache is not the place to fix this. It is entirely valid for a
So you think that should be fixed in every single provider?
Yes.
Each provider should have the opportunity to cache a 206 if it so
wishes, as RFC2616 allows it. Remember that providers don't have to be
written by us.
Any provider that chooses not to support a 206 should explicitly do
so, not rely on mod_cache to enforce a blanket ban on supporting 206
response caching.
I am currently not convinced that any provider could cache a 206 with
the current mod_cache infrastructure.
There was nothing in the original design for mod_cache that stopped a
provider trying to cache a 206.
cache implementation to be given the opportunity to cache a 206, if
Right, RFC2616 permits caching 206's.
Regards,
Graham
--
