On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Ricardo Newbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 3, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Michael S. Fischer wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Sascha Ottolski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > and I don't wan't upstream caches or browsers to cache that long, only > > > varnish, so setting headers doesn't seem to fit. > > > > > > > Why not? Just curious. If it's truly cachable content, it seems as > > though it would make sense (both for your performance and your > > bandwidth outlays) to let browsers cache. > > Can't speak for the OP but a common use case is where you want an > aggressive cache but still need to retain the ability to purge the cache > when content changes. As far as I know, there are only two ways to do this > without contaminating downstream caches with potentially stale content... > via special treatment in the varnish config (which is what the OP is trying > to do) or using a special header that only your varnish instance will > recognize (like Surrogate-Control, which as far as I know Varnish does not > support out-of-the-box but Squid3 does).
Seems to me that this is rather brittle and error-prone. - If a particular resource is truly dynamic, then it should not be cachable at all. - If a particular resource can be considered static (i.e. cachable), yet updateable, then it is *far* safer to version your URLs, as you have zero control over intermediate proxies. --Michael _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
