Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Friday, March 4, 2005 11:55 PM +0100 Sander Striker
[...]
What happens if the 'Cache-Control: no-store' header came in with a
304 Not Modified and the original request wasn't conditional?
If I read the spec correctly a 304 can carry a Cache-Control header,
if it has
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 4, 2004 12:39 PM -0700 Justin Erenkrantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch removes the mod_cache dependencies upon the odd vtable and
hooks
and standardizes upon the ap_provider_* API. mod_auth uses this provider
interface now as has mod_dav.
Sander Striker wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 4, 2004 12:39 PM -0700 Justin Erenkrantz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch removes the mod_cache dependencies upon the odd vtable and
hooks
and standardizes upon the ap_provider_* API. mod_auth uses this
provider
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
2.1.3 tarballs at: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'd like to get enough votes for 2.1.3 to be a beta and commence the
feature freeze towards a 2.2.0 GA.
As we discussed at ApacheCon in November (over three months ago), this
would mean we create a 2.2.x branch from
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:24:20 -0500, Geoffrey Young
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:39:06 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow :) That would be extraordinarily useful. Any hope the scheme
would be extensible, so a module such as
In the very short term I'll have something working with the web
servers I help support which are based on 1.3.x and 2.0.x. I have no
time to waste trying to DTRT with respect to Apache users if there is
no developer interest. If there is developer interest, I'm happy to
work towards a common
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 10:59:30PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ok, as Justin and I are in significant disagreement ... to summarize;
we (collectively) would like to see some mechanism for multiple
configurations of the same 'provider' (defined above). There are
logically three places
Sander Striker wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
AIUI, we can cache 302 Found (HTTP_MOVED_TEMPORARILY) when it has an
Expires or Cache-Control indicating that the request can be cached.
Fair enough. Feel free to add it, if you like.
Well, I'm first going to check if we are
--On Sunday, March 6, 2005 1:54 PM +0100 Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I completely agree. So much even that I just committed it (r156306).
Why are we storing the header fd in the disk object anyways? I haven't
gone through mod_disk_cache.c yet, but at least for store_headers() it
--On Monday, March 7, 2005 2:03 AM +0100 Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, I do think you are right that ap_meets_conditions() doesn't do the
right thing. But that is in general, not just in this case. It doesn't
seem to take responses other than 2xx into account. In those
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
[...]
Luckily for us, there is more work left even in mod_cache. Right now,
whenever we hit a Cache-Control: no-cache in the request, the cache
declines to handle the request, while it could be handling it (be it
with a required validation request
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
I completely agree. So much even that I just committed it (r156306).
Why are we storing the header fd in the disk object anyways? I haven't
gone through mod_disk_cache.c yet, but at least for store_headers() it
doesn't seem to make any sense.
It's
--On Monday, March 7, 2005 7:47 AM +0100 Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That's what I initially thought when I glanced over it. Then I started
wondering why headers are retrieved from h-req_hdrs, instead of
r-headers_in. I noticed we save the request headers of the request
that got a
13 matches
Mail list logo
