On May 18, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, because rv == !OK, wouldn't the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter hit?
> That should do the dirty deed, no? -- justin
No, as the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter will only work if there is a
cach
On Fri, 18 May 2007, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 5/17/07, Niklas Edmundsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has there been any progress on PR41230? I submitted a patch that at
least seems to improve the situation that now seems to have seen some
testing by others as well.
As I have stated before,
On 5/17/07, Niklas Edmundsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has there been any progress on PR41230? I submitted a patch that at
least seems to improve the situation that now seems to have seen some
testing by others as well.
As I have stated before, it would be really nice if a fix for this
could
On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -477,8 +477,10 @@
> reason = "No Last-Modified, Etag, or Expires headers";
> }
> else if (r->header_only) {
> -/* HEAD requests */
> -reason = "HTTP HEAD request";
> +/* Forbid HEAD requests unless
On 05/18/2007 11:26 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Well, because rv == !OK, wouldn't the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter hit?
>> > That should do the dirty deed, no? -- justin
>>
>> No, as the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter will only work if there i
On 5/18/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, because rv == !OK, wouldn't the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter hit?
> That should do the dirty deed, no? -- justin
No, as the CACHE_REMOVE_URL filter will only work if there is a
cache->handle or a cache->stale_handle. We have neither, as c
On 05/18/2007 02:23 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 5/17/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> why. Also the entity is not physically removed from the cache if it is
>> really stale.
>> This does not matter in the non HEAD case as it gets overwritten by
>> the fresh response,
>> b
On 5/17/07, Ruediger Pluem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
why. Also the entity is not physically removed from the cache if it is really
stale.
This does not matter in the non HEAD case as it gets overwritten by the fresh
response,
but in the HEAD case it should be physically removed IMO.
Well, be
On 05/18/2007 01:26 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 5/17/07, Niklas Edmundsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Has there been any progress on PR41230? I submitted a patch that at
>> least seems to improve the situation that now seems to have seen some
>> testing by others as well.
>>
>> As I h
On 5/17/07, Niklas Edmundsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has there been any progress on PR41230? I submitted a patch that at
least seems to improve the situation that now seems to have seen some
testing by others as well.
As I have stated before, it would be really nice if a fix for this
could b
Has there been any progress on PR41230? I submitted a patch that at
least seems to improve the situation that now seems to have seen some
testing by others as well.
As I have stated before, it would be really nice if a fix for this
could be committed, be it my patch or some other solution.
11 matches
Mail list logo