On 2010-07-11 at 01:40, [email protected] wrote: > Author: niq > Date: Sun Jul 11 05:40:27 2010 > New Revision: 962985 > > * mod_disk_cache: Decline the opportunity to cache if the response is > a 206 Partial Content. This stops a reverse proxied partial response > @@ -214,6 +225,9 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK: > Trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=951222&view=rev > 2.2.x patch: > http://people.apache.org/~minfrin/httpd-cache-partial-2.2.patch > +1: minfrin > + niq asks: I can see the logic of not cacheing partial responses, > + but why should mod_disk_cache worry about them if mod_cache allows > + them, as in the following proposal? > > *) mod_cache: Explicitly allow cache implementations to cache a 206 Partial > Response if they so choose to do so. Previously an attempt to cache a > 206
I think right now mod_cache doesn't let any 206 responses get to the cache backends, but if that change is made to let them by, then backends that don't correctly implement caching of 206 responses will need to decline to cache them themselves. Which makes me wonder, won't other cache back-ends, like mod_mem_cache, need the same change? Dan
