[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
[...]
That said, in 2.1, I think we should restore status in mod_cache, not in
the cache
Sorry for being confused. But maybe my question was not completely correct.
It was fine; I'm being 'lazy' and not looking at the code, but going by
memory instead. Sometimes I forget pieces...
mod_disk_cache does not restore r->status directly but it restores the status
information to cache->handle->cache_obj->info.status. This gives mod_cache the
opportunity to restore r->status from this (as my patch does). The problem is
that mod_mem_cache does not seem to restore the status information at all from
its storage.
Right, this is where mod_disk_cache did get some attention and mod_mem_cache
didn't yet.
This way mod_cache has no chance to restore it in this case.
I agree with you that mod_cache should set r->status with the information
restored by the provider to cache->handle->cache_obj->info.status.
mod_cache should take the final decision if it does that or not. This decision
should not be done by the providers.
Indeed.
[...]
providers. Ofcourse, if that isn't possible for whatever reason, the
restoration has to be done in _all_ cache providers. The above might explain
the
discrepancies...
But all cache providers have to store it in their storage and have to restore it
from there to the caching data structure. Maybe this is what you wanted to say?
Yup.
Sander
