On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 11:55:16AM -0500, Jacob Elder wrote: > The default Varnish config does not honor "no-cache" in Cache-control > headers. It is my personal opinion that it should, but it's easy enough to > add this behavior if desired.
This is a trade-off of sorts. RFC2616 doesn't really have any real description of a reverse proxy, and thus we are left making best efforts. In most cases, we find ourself on the origin-side of the equation. The Cache-Control header is currently sent to the clients too and it is with those in mind that most web application developers design the Cache-Control header. Even using s-maxage/max-age is controversial enough. The difference is that s-maxage/max-age/expire require date-parsing, which isn't trivial in VCL at the moment. Check if no-cache or private is present is trivial. Personally, I'm leaning towards keeping the curent behavior, but it's a topic of frequent debate. It's very common to distinguish between web-clients and the reverse proxy - ideally we'd want our own set of headers... - Kristian _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
