On 2 Sep 2010, at 18:20, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 02 Sep 2010, at 7:01 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > >> Indeed. I guess my comment in STATUS was down to reviewing that >> backport proposal (and checking the RFC) before I saw the other one. >> >> I guess the real question is: why enable it in the abstract, in the >> absence of a backend implementation? Surely there's no backend >> that's going to be simpler to support ranges in than plain ol' disk? > > mod_cache.h exports a public provider interface, allowing external parties to > write implementations of their own that are distributed separately from the > httpd server. > > It is broken for mod_cache to dictate to an external implementation that it > is forbidden from caching partial responses, when the caching of partial > responses is allowed by RFC2616.
I disagree about 'broken': a cache isn't *required* to cache ranges. As for third-party backends, this change is at serious risk of breaking anything that has (perfectly reasonably) ignored range responses. Fine for trunk, but not for a stable branch. -- Nick Kew
