John J Lee <jj...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment: > Yes,it currently does not handle chained redirects via cache. I dont know > RFC's stance on it. RFC does not say anything about 301 chained redirects
I don't see anything in the RFC that prevents us caching chained 301 redirections. Caching the chained redirections is better, because it reduces the number of requests, which is the purpose of the cache. > there are tricker issues of caching anything other than 301. Antoine wasn't suggesting caching URLs from non-301 responses, just that you don't need to add a new method named "http_redirect_301". Just delete it and test "if code == 301" in http_error_302. > Basically, 302 and other require the client to check and comply with the > Cache-Control and Expires header. I don't think references to caching in the descriptions of the 30* response codes are relevant, because urllib2 doesn't implement response caching. I think the part that's relevant is this: "The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned URIs." > The global opener seems to be a straight forward way to for this activity and > not a harmful too. I can't think of request-specific object for this one. No. The global OpenerDirector instance is a convenience to allow having a global urlopen() function. Having a handler pick a random opener object (the global one) would be insane. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1755841> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
