Remy Maucherat wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 23:09 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote: >> Having now read Roy's comment on 39727 I'm leaning towards reverting >> this patch and seeing what is possible following the Transfer-Encoding >> route. I'll sleep on it in case a better idea occurs to me and come back >> to this tomorrow. > > If you look at the Coyote code, you can probably guess I originally > thought about compression using transfer-encoding (prepareRequest is > rather obvious about that), and it did not work. Content-encoding did, > though.
Can you remember what didn't work with Transfer-Encoding? > I don't understand why giving an option to not send an ETag would not > also be a solution. At least, if it does not, I do not understand how > proxies are not broken. To quote Roy from bug 39727: "removing etags for the entire configured scope allows clients to use the last-modified timestamp for range requests, which would be just as bad as not changing ETag" > I also think proxies should be smarter, and assume serving of both a > compressed and an uncompressed version, obviously using the same ETag > (and send the right version depending on whether or not the client has > compression). Otherwise, there's no way things can be efficient. It appears that some caches do already do this although behaviour is far from consistent among caches. Unfortunately this is outside the spec so there is no guarantee of what the behaviour may be. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
