On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John Hjelmstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does that seem reasonable, at least for fixing the current bug? Clearly we > need to clean up this logic in the future anyway.
May I humbly suggest that doing content rewriting in a cache is bound to be crack-addled and we should move it elsewhere in the flow? I think the original reason for putting it there was to keep a single cache entry for both original and rewritten content. Are there other reasons it has to be done in the caching class?
