Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:28 PM +0200 R�diger Pl�m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[..cut..]


Many thanks for the quick response. As I was curious I had a look to the cvs. Sorry for the maybe stupid question. Do I understand this correctly: You commit the changes to the main branch (aka. Apache 2.1) and Bill Stoddard backports them to the Apache 2.0 branch. So the fixes for 21492 and 30278 will be part of 2.0.53 if Bill finds time to backport them to the the Apache 2.0 branch before 2.0.53 is released?


23687/30399 which is more an Enhancement than a bug.


As for the patch that you do have, a better way to implement it is to have a 3-state variable: UNSET|OFF|ON. We use that idiom a lot. It's better than adding two variables. Care to update your patch?

Yes, I will have a look into this. As I am a newbie to Apache programing I used the two other FLAG directives (CacheIgnoreNoLastMod / CacheIgnoreCacheControl) as some kind of template for my patch. They use two varaibles. Maybe it makes sense to migrate them also to a 3-state variable. I will have a look into this.


Also, I'm wondering if we should extend this directive to be more general: i.e. a 'CacheIgnoreHeader' directive? What do you think?

Yes, this is a nice idea and it had been on my mind as I wrote the patch. I did not implement that because

1. As mentioned above I am a newbie and the implementation of a FLAG directive seemed 
to be easier
   to me than one that takes (multiple) parameters.
2. I am a little worried what happens if this directive is used to ignore headers that 
are needed
   for the correct functionality of mod_cache (e.g. Etag / Content-Type). So maybe it 
is needed to
   have a list of headers that cannot be ignored to prevent stupid configurations. But 
I think
   this leads to the philosophical question how much flexibility should be given to 
the user and
   how much the user should be protected from stupid configurations. So I am 
interested in your thoughts
   on this point.

Nevertheless if the conclusion is made that creating a 'CacheIgnoreHeader' directive 
is a good idea the next
question is how to setup this directive. I would think of something like the Options 
directive that allows
a list of space separated arguments and allows to add or remove single arguments with 
+/- during the merging
of arguments. Any thoughts?



I want to thank you *so* much for summarizing these bugs. ;-) I just don't have the time to search through Bugzilla. If you are aware of any other mod_cache bugs, please bring them up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! --

I will try to do so.

justin



Regards

R�diger



Reply via email to