https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65513
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> --- So, we can't revert the change because the reasoning behind it was legitimate and it's an appropriate change. On the other hand, you are right, Scott, the behavior did change in a potentially unexpected way. Note that Tomcat is not Debian, where absolutely nothing whatsoever is expected to change between versions other than fixing security problems. Behavior-causing changes are not forbidden within point-releases, here. The changelog does contain an entry announcing the change. The changelog is the appropriate place to go when looking for changes between releases. There is a "Notable Changes" section on the web site which in this case did not get an entry added. I think it would be appropriate to add an item to this list: http://tomcat.apache.org/migration-9.html#Tomcat_9.0.x_noteable_changes The only way to effectively "undo" this change would be to install a RewriteValve into the default configuration which replicated pre-9.0.51 behavior. That seems a little heavy-handed and does not help anyone who uses their own (e.g. revision-controlled) configuration. Finally, the "Expires" header is only part of the equation. I haven't tested this, but if you want to prevent Google Chrome from storing your pages in the bfcache (which isn't the disk!), you will need to use "Cache-Control: no-store" and the "Expires" header has no effect. I tend to agree that no further code/configuration changes should be made, but that the documentation can certainly be improved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
