In message loom.20090211t115351-...@post.gmane.org, Ole Laursen writes:
Why doesn't Varnish respect Cache-Control: private and Cache-Control: no-cache
out of the box?
Because we see those as headers you want non-friendly caches to act on,
whereas we consider Varnish a friendly cache, under your
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
In message loom.20090211t115351-...@..., Ole Laursen writes:
Why doesn't Varnish respect Cache-Control: private and Cache-Control:
no-cache
out of the box?
Because we see those as headers you want non-friendly caches to act on,
whereas we consider
In message loom.20090212t090929-...@post.gmane.org, Ole Laursen writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
I looked up private here
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html
and it says
Indicates that all or part of the response message is intended
for a single user and
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
We don't consider varnish a shared cache in the RFC2616 sense of
the concept, because the varnish instance is fully under the control
of the servers administrator, and should therefore be considered
part of the server.
As I read that part of the RFC, shared
In message loom.20090212t102450-...@post.gmane.org, Ole Laursen writes:
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
We don't consider varnish a shared cache in the RFC2616 sense of
the concept, because the varnish instance is fully under the control
of the servers administrator, and should therefore be
Poul-Henning Kamp p...@... writes:
If you look *really* carefully through the RFC2616, you will find one
reference to server side caches -- which they forgot to remove.
I get your point (the RFC doesn't apply to Varnish). It wasn't my intention to
slam Varnish for standards violation, though,
]] Florian Gilcher
| So, I am beginning to wonder on how esi:include is implemented in
| varnish or what I am doing wrong. Because - granted - the ESI
| specification could be interpreted to include the element without
| giving much thought on what the returned entity actually represents.
]] Rob Ayres
| Does anyone have an idea what has caused this?
Not really, no. I'm going to get a buildbot slave going on Solaris so
we'll hopefully be able to avoid such bugs in the future. If you have
found a solution, patches are more than welcome.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
Redpill Linpro --
Andreas Fassl afa...@... writes:
after reading the docs it looks like I need an apache server to serve
the cached mp3 content for streaming on demand.
Any experience in configuration of this setup?
No, but I have set up a site with videos streamed with a Flash widget. We let
the video files
On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Well, if people in general think our defaults should be that way, we
can change them, our defaults are whatever the consensus can agree on.
I'm with the OP. Regardless of the finer details of the RFC, if I'm a
web developer and I set the
In message 49945b51.90...@progis.de, Andreas Fassl writes:
Hi, especially the caching is very important for us, because we want to
keep traffic away from the mp3 repository server.
So you recommend:
Client requests streaming on demand mp3
- lighthttpd does streaming and requests from
- varnish
11 matches
Mail list logo
