On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:01:35PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote: > >While I think this is a good idea, I'd like to consider renaming this > >particular directive as I think the name is really confusing. > > Does that mean you want me to hold off on committing this patch pending > a directive rename? Isn't that a seperate issue?
Nah, go ahead and commit if you like. It's just that you brought up the point of making the directive more intuitive - and I have problems from the word go on this particular directive being intuitive. It's not. In order to understand what this directive does, you need to know what Cache-Control from the RFC means - and that's not intuitive. I'd like something that expresses the concept that we will serve cached content even if the client asks for 'fresh' content. The closest I can come up with is 'CacheServeStale' - but that's not quite right or even precise either. > >My concern is that CacheIgnoreCacheControl only refers to the request's > >Cache-Control not the origin response's Cache-Control header. But, I like > >that separation because having it refer to both is too coarse-grained, I > >think. > > Definately agreed. Ignoring response Cache-Control is in another league > than > ignoring the request Cache-Control. Correct. > >But, I don't have any real ideas for what an alternative name is. -- > >justin > > CacheIgnoreServerCacheControl? Per above, I don't like the phrase Cache-Control. -- justin
