On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 20:05 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Actually, in this case, If-None-Match matched (i.e., "no one matched"
> is
> true). And this is exactly why we can ignore that conditional header
> field and treat the request as an unconditional hit. All these
> conditional headers have
On 12/04/2016 08:57 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 4:05 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> All these
>> conditional headers have the same overall logic: If the answer to the
>> "If" question asked by the header field name is "yes", then the header
>> field is essentially ignored.
> FWIW; I
On 5/12/2016 4:05 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> If you have not done so, please do check _all_ TCP_IMS_HIT occurrences
> (at least) to make sure the surrounding code is still valid after
> splitting TCP_IMS_HIT into two values.
>
Just to be clear, Garri, I am awaiting your response to that
On 11/30/2016 08:12 AM, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> I've attached fixed version.
> +// If-None-Match did not match; treat as an unconditional hit
> +return false;
Actually, in this case, If-None-Match matched (i.e., "no one matched" is
true). And this is exactly why we can ignore
