Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:38:40AM +0200, Plm, Rdiger, VIS wrote: > >>In the case that you are caching a response from a backend app server or >>a cgi script I can imagine situations where one variant is 404 and another >>one is not. Dw also pointed that out. >>From my personal point of view we should keep them and let the next >>revalidation >>on them caused by a client decide whether they should be removed or not. > > > I guess I just don't buy that as a legitimate (and compliant) use case; but if > that's how some servers work, I guess.
Agreed. I confess that I sometimes misuse mod_cache to get the performance of odd commercial web applications fixed. And it is easier to misuse mod_cache and sometimes to patch it for this misuse then to get commercial vendors fix their sloppy software :-(. > > So, that should mean that the code is fine as-is. > > Basicly yes, from my personal point of view. BTW: Can you have a look at the patch I proposed at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/200508.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] to delete the empty directories (dir_removal_patch.diff) for the cache entries that get removed? That would be very nice. [..cut..] Thanks Rüdiger
