On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Brian Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> One failure that added bloat that I'm partially guilty for is the >> Accept header. Wouldn't you say good riddance to Accept if we could >> as far as site compat goes? > > I meant that it would be great to have U-A in a module that people didn't see > Necko team as being responsible for, because of the flamewars around it. > Accept-* is relatively drama-free. > > However, perhaps we still need to closely track changes to User-Agent. In > particular, do we need to do anything w.r.t. invalidating entries in the > cache when User-Agent and/or other request headers change? I hope that we > don't store all these request headers in each cache entry. But, if we don't, > then we need to automatically invalidate entries that vary depending on these > headers every time they change. (And we need to assume an implicit "Vary: > User-Agent" on every cached response, considering how often Vary: User-Agent > is wrongly omitted.)
Yeah, we don't store all request headers. We store a hash of the cookie header, and we store all headers that were specified in Vary. -christian _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
