On 2010-09-02 at 12:37, Ruediger Pluem <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
True, but I think that's needed before we can backport the mod_cache change being proposed here. Dan
