hey,
That way, any shared proxy cache on the path between our caches and
the client would cache the object.
Our customer didn't want this. The purpose was to have the freshest
information as close as the origin as possible.
cheers
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:00 AM, pablort
Isn't this the equivalent of and max-age=5 and s-maxage=0 ?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Bedis 9 bed...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Netcache devices had the X-Accel-Cache-Control headers in order to
allow an origin server to setup different Cache-Control parameters for
the cache and the
Hi,
Netcache devices had the X-Accel-Cache-Control headers in order to
allow an origin server to setup different Cache-Control parameters for
the cache and the end-user.
The netcache will follow the X-Accel-Cache-Control while the end user
will follow the Cache-Control.
I've a few customer using
Michael Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp p...@phk.freebsd.dk
mailto:p...@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
In message de028c9e-4618-4ebc-8477-6e308753c...@dynamine.net
mailto:de028c9e-4618-4ebc-8477-6e308753c...@dynamine.net,
Michael S. Fis
cher writes:
Hi all,
we are considering changing the defaults on how the cache-control header
is handled in Varnish. Currently, we only look at s-maxage and maxage
to decide if and how long an object should be cached. (We also look at
expires, but that's not relevant here.)
My suggestion is to also look
2010/1/18 Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@redpill-linpro.com:
Hi all,
we are considering changing the defaults on how the cache-control header
is handled in Varnish. Currently, we only look at s-maxage and maxage
to decide if and how long an object should be cached. (We also look at
expires, but
On Jan 18, 2010, at 5:20 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
we are considering changing the defaults on how the cache-control header
is handled in Varnish. Currently, we only look at s-maxage and maxage
to decide if and how long an object should be cached. (We also look at
expires, but that's not
In message de028c9e-4618-4ebc-8477-6e308753c...@dynamine.net, Michael S. Fis
cher writes:
On Jan 18, 2010, at 5:20 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
My suggestion is to also look at Cache-control: no-cache, possibly also
private and no-store and obey those.
Why wasn't it doing it all along?
