Ole Laursen o...@iola.dk 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 MUST NOT be cached by a shared cache. This
allows an origin
On Feb 13, 2009, at 4:54 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Ole Laursen o...@iola.dk 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 MUST NOT be
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,
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
