On 6/21/2010 4:00 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > > As I understand it, Rüdiger's patch may be better for caching but uses > more CPU cycles. But it uses way less CPU than no patch at all. > Therefore I propose to include that patch unless there is clear > consensus that Eric's patch is to be preferred.
Not a significant number, and Rüdiger's patch gathered +1's from myself, gregames, nick is on the wall with a +.5 - I think your question is to Rüdiger, with the emphasis on 'what is your decision?' based on this last rather indecisive posting. On 7/16/2009 9:24 AM, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote: >> >> For a large static file, Ruedigers patch suppresses the C-L entirely >> (it gets added back in down the chain for my patch, for static files >> at least) which I thought would make that prefered, if we're confident >> that we'll never do more than a zlib buffer worth of work the first >> go-round. > > Good point. So your patch would invalidate a cached entity if the > response to a GET delivered a C-L header, since HEAD and GET would > deliver different C-L headers. > OTOH I think only very small or extremely compressable responses (whether > static or not) would have a C-L in the response to a GET, because everything > that exceeeds a zlib buffer would be delivered chunked anyway.
