tor 2007-05-24 klockan 13:22 +0200 skrev Niklas Edmundsson: > c) RFC-wise it seems to me that a not-modified object is a > not-modified object. There is no guarantee that next request will > hit the same cache, so nothing can expect a max-age=0 request to > force a cache to rewrite its headers and then access it with > max-age!=0 and get headers of that age.
Yes. RFC wise it's fine to not update the cache with the 304. Updating of cached entries is optional (RFC2616 10.3.5 last paragraph). The only MUST regardig 304 and caches is that you MUST ignore the 304 and retry the request without the conditional if the 304 indicates another object than what is currently cached (i.e. ETag or Last-Modified differs). (same section, the paragraph above) Regards Henrik
signature.asc
Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
