> Polipo intentionally ignores [1] weak ETags. Yes.
> Why? Because support for them has never been implemented. > The very concept of a weak entity tag [2] exists because some entity > tags are unreliable for concurrency control (aka the "lost update" > problem) but still useful for cache validation. I agree. Implementing support for weak ETags is not quite trivial -- unlike any other proxy I'm aware of, Polipo implements caching of incomplete instances (if you hit Stop in the middle of a download then hit reload, only the remainder of the instance will be fetched using a conditional range request), so implementing weak ETags would require a little bit of thought. Please feel free to fork Polipo -- I'm not doing any active development on Polipo any more, but I'll be glad to review your changes. > What's more, Polipo removes weak ETags from responses [3]. Is this > intentional? It's the easy solution. Granted, it's suboptimal. At the time when Polipo was written, weak ETags were very rare -- doing the right thing with strong ETags was already way in advance on all other implementations of HTTP/1.1. Since then, web app authors have learnt, and weak ETags have become predominant. I agree that adding support for weak ETags would be a good thing, but I'm not going to be the one to do it. -- Juliusz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Polipo-users mailing list Polipo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/polipo-users
