In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" writes:
>"If the no-cache directive does not specify a field-name, then a cache >MUST NOT [...] Varnish is not a cache in the RFC2616 sense. It more of an extension of the web-server, which is probably best thought of as "a webserver that picks up its contents with HTTP". Therefore, a lot of what RFC2616 has to say about caches do not apply to Varnish. The key distinction is that a RFC2616 cache is not under the content providers control, so it must follow whatever intructions he gives in the HTTP headers, whereas Varnish is under his control and he therefore has other means of instruction (notably VCL). -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
