On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 02:20:35PM +0200, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006, Graham Leggett wrote: > > >On Tue, September 26, 2006 1:00 pm, Joe Orton wrote: > > > >>This was discussed a while back. I think this is an API problem which > >>needs to be fixed at API level, not something which should be worked > >>around by adding bucket-type-specific hacks. > > > >API changes won't be backportable to v2.2.x though, although you're right. > > Won't that method mean that caching the file will happen at the speed > the client reads the file?
I think that's really a separate issue, but yes, unless you start getting into very clever tricks. For a general purpose proxy you can no more assume that you can do a quick copy-to-cache of a FILE bucket *before the client times out* than you can with any other type of bucket. Regards, joe
