On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 11:04 +1000, russell muetzelfeldt wrote: > snark aside, if I say "ns_returnfile /tmp/foo-abcd" but nsd sends the > contents of the now-deleted /tmp/bar-wxyz to the client then it's not > doing what I've explicitly asked, and it's a bug. > > just because the correct (imo) response is "tag WONTFIX, document as > a gotcha, document workaround" doesn't mean that the behaviour is > correct.
If your application wasn't the responsible party which violated the expectation you state, I would agree (maybe). The problem is that you think that the contents of a file remains unchanged as long as the filename itself remains unchanged. Actually the problem is that someone is using a file to store volatile data and then feeding this file through a cache. You really need to think about this insanity. Because it is insanity. 1. You waste time writing data to a file. 2. You use ns_returnfile to send this data (reading from disk). 3. Fastpath puts this information into memory (taking space). 4. ns_returnfile uses the memory copy on later requests (but none valid). 5. meanwhile the file is deleted, cache still exists taking up memory. The above are "ideal" conditions. The bug is not in ns_returnfile. tom jackson -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
