On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:47:35AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> >> Ok, hit me over the head. Why wouldn't you want to use a caching proxy?
> >
> >Apache::CacheContent gives you more control over the caching process
> >and keeps the expiration headers from leaking to the browser.
>
> Ok, I see.
>
> >Or maybe you want to dynamically control the TTL?
>
> Would you still use it with a front-end lightweight server? Even with
> caching, a mod_perl server is still used to send the cached file (possibly
> over 56K modem), right?
You definitely want a proxy-cache in front of your mod_perl server.
One thing that I like about this module is that you can control the
server-side caching of content separate from the client/browser cache.
So, on to the RFC. Is the name acceptable for Apache::*
I will endeavor to add any functionality that makes it worthy :)
For example, I think adding a virtual method that generates the
filename might be useful.
--
Paul Lindner [EMAIL PROTECTED] ||||| | | | | | | | | |
mod_perl Developer's Cookbook http://www.modperlcookbook.org
Human Rights Declaration http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm
