On 09/02/2010 04:09 PM, Dan Poirier wrote: > On 2010-07-11 at 01:40, [email protected] wrote: > >> Author: niq >> Date: Sun Jul 11 05:40:27 2010 >> New Revision: 962985 >> >> * mod_disk_cache: Decline the opportunity to cache if the response is >> a 206 Partial Content. This stops a reverse proxied partial response >> @@ -214,6 +225,9 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: >> Trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=951222&view=rev >> 2.2.x patch: >> http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/httpd-cache-partial-2.2.patch >> +1: minfrin >> + niq asks: I can see the logic of not cacheing partial responses, >> + but why should mod_disk_cache worry about them if mod_cache allows >> + them, as in the following proposal? >> >> *) mod_cache: Explicitly allow cache implementations to cache a 206 >> Partial >> Response if they so choose to do so. Previously an attempt to cache a >> 206 > > I think right now mod_cache doesn't let any 206 responses get to the > cache backends, but if that change is made to let them by, then backends > that don't correctly implement caching of 206 responses will need to > decline to cache them themselves. > > Which makes me wonder, won't other cache back-ends, like mod_mem_cache, > need the same change?
Exactly, but mod_mem_cache is not on trunk any longer. So we cannot do a backport here, but must write a 2.2.x specific patch that is not on trunk. Regards Rüdiger
