[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCLIENT-1032?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12969807#action_12969807 ]
Jon Moore commented on HTTPCLIENT-1032: --------------------------------------- I think this is related to the way we store and manage variants. Right now, we create a cache key for a variant based on the varying headers from the original request, and then store these cache keys on the "parent" entry. I think this combines two items which should be separated: 1. which cache entries are variants of a parent entry 2. which variant should be used for a particular set of request headers I think this might be as simple as turning the Set<String> "variantURIs" on the parent cache entry into a Map<String,String> that maps request header values (using the scheme we currently use to generate the variantURI cache keys) to particular cache locations. Thus in the example above, rather than storing a new variant entry, we should simply "point" requests with "User-Agent: agent2" to the cache entry for the "agent1" response. Thoughts? > cache revalidation of variants does not update original variant entry > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HTTPCLIENT-1032 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HTTPCLIENT-1032 > Project: HttpComponents HttpClient > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Cache > Affects Versions: 4.1 Beta1 > Reporter: Jon Moore > Priority: Minor > Attachments: variant-entry-update-test.patch > > > When the cache stories multiple variant entries due to Vary headers in > responses, the cache correctly sends a conditional request containing the > etags of any existing variants on a "variant miss" (incoming request does not > match the request variants already cached). In addition, when it receives a > 304 response, it correctly returns the indicated variant to the request that > causes the variant miss. However, it does not update the pre-existing variant > cache entry as recommended by RFC 2616. > For example: > request 1, User-Agent: agent1 results in a 200 OK with Etag: etag1 and Vary: > User-Agent. > request 2, User-Agent: agent2 causes an If-None-Match to the origin; if it > returns 304 Not Modified with Etag: etag1 > request 3, User-Agent: agent1 results in a 200 OK but gets the (outdated) > entry that resulted from request 1 > in other words, the origin response from request 2 does not update the > variant for "agent1". > This does not cause incorrect behavior (this is a SHOULD) but does miss out > on some caching opportunities here. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org