Anybody found some time / has some time to have a look at the patch? This would be really great and appreciated.
Thanks Rüdiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sander Striker wrote: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > [..cut..] > > >>>Is this behaviour intended and compliant with the RFC? >> >> >>Not to my knowlegde. Given that mod_mem_cache and mod_disk_cache are doing >>different things is pretty much indicative that one of the two is wrong ;). > > > That was also my thought. > > >>>The reason for this behaviour is that the remove_url function of >>>mod_disk_cache is a dummy function >>>(BTW: mod_mem_cache seems to really remove the cache entry in >>>remove_url). >>>If this behaviour is not intended I would have a look into this to >>>create a patch. >> >> >>Please do! >> > > > I created a patch but the problem turned out to be more complex than I thought > originally. So a close look on the patch is definitely a good thing. Some > comments: > > 1. I had to adjust the cache provider API for remove_url as I need the > request_rec > struct to remove the files correctly in mod_disk_cache. > > 2. It turned out that 404 responses are not passed down the filter chain the > way I expected. > Adjusting the default handler again proved that the changes to > mod_disk_cache worked > (files got deleted), but this broke any error page handling in Apache. So > I tried to address > this problem at other locations of the code. I detected two cases: > > 1. Apache generated error messages or redirect to external source. > 2. Custom local error documents. > > In the first case I use the insert_error_filter hook to ensure that the > CACHE_SAVE filter > is reinserted to the filter chain if it has been inserted before during > the request. > > In the second case the filter chain is run, but with the wrong URI. So I > checked if there > is a previous request (r->prev) and if it has the same status code (this > happens in a section > where we only handle uncachable status codes). If this is the case I > assume that I should delete > the URL from the previous request from the cache. > > So any comments / thoughts on this? > > > Regards > > Rüdiger
