[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> [..cut..]
>
> >
> > In addition, the "entity" must be updated to contain more attributes of
> > the request (args, POST args, cookies, etc.). And to find it fast, the
> > key generated by cache_generate_key must be based on more things (such
> > a
Eli Marmor wrote:
[..cut..]
In addition, the "entity" must be updated to contain more attributes of
the request (args, POST args, cookies, etc.). And to find it fast, the
key generated by cache_generate_key must be based on more things (such
as args). Because sometimes a dynamic site may have thou
--On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 7:42 PM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
That's all?!
Let me quote myself (and this is not the complete list):
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth,
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> --On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:47 AM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Time to define the exact directive and names?
>
> I'd start with all of the directive that mod_cache currently exposes that
> are binary (on/off).
>
> At a quick glance, that l
--On Wednesday, March 9, 2005 9:47 AM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Time to define the exact directive and names?
I'd start with all of the directive that mod_cache currently exposes that
are binary (on/off).
At a quick glance, that looks like CacheIgnoreCacheControl,
CacheIgnore
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > --On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 9:38 PM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It depends if you need it only for the server configuration, or for
> >> dir_config;
> >> In the latter case, you don't have another choice, you just NE
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 9:38 PM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It depends if you need it only for the server configuration, or for
dir_config;
In the latter case, you don't have another choice, you just NEED the +-
Actually, cache can't respect any dir c
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 9:38 PM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
It depends if you need it only for the server configuration, or for
dir_config;
In the latter case, you don't have another choice, you just NEED the +-
Actually, cache can't respect any dir config's (because it is a q
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > CacheOptions +StorePrivate +IgnoreClientControl +IgnoreServerControl
> > +CachePOST +CacheAuth
> > CacheOptions +all
> > CacheOptions -all
>
> I suggest avoiding the +/- syntax which has proven confusing to many
> users and adds very little in
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
CacheOptions +StorePrivate +IgnoreClientControl +IgnoreServerControl
+CachePOST +CacheAuth
CacheOptions +all
CacheOptions -all
I suggest avoiding the +/- syntax which has proven confusing to many
users and adds very little in functionality. Just use
CacheOptions StorePr
Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> >
> > --On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
> > > prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
> >
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
> > prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
> > auth, GET args, private, public,
--On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 8:12 PM +0200 Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If I recall correctly, there were MANY conditions in mod_cache that
prevented caching (like checking for a POST method, no-store, no-cache,
auth, GET args, private, public, must-revalidate, maxage, etc.).
My idea was
Sander Striker wrote:
>
> Eli Marmor wrote:
> [...]
> > CacheForOffline? (or Cache4Offline)
> >
> > Offline browsing is the main case where you need such absolute caching.
> > But it requires you to cache EVERYTHING. Including dynamic content, and
> > even different content according to different
Eli Marmor wrote:
[...]
CacheForOffline? (or Cache4Offline)
Offline browsing is the main case where you need such absolute caching.
But it requires you to cache EVERYTHING. Including dynamic content, and
even different content according to different POST input. Maybe two
directives are needed, one
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
It's just that you brought up the point
of making the directive more intuitive - and I have problems from the word go
on this particular directive being intuitive. It's not.
In order to understand what this directive does, you need to know what
Cache-Control from the RFC m
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:01:35PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> > >While I think this is a good idea, I'd like to consider renaming this
> > >particular directive as I think the name is really confusing.
> >
> > Does that mean you want me to hold off on committing th
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 06:01:35PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> >While I think this is a good idea, I'd like to consider renaming this
> >particular directive as I think the name is really confusing.
>
> Does that mean you want me to hold off on committing this patch pending
> a directive rename
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:57:55AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
Hi,
Currently CacheIgnoreCacheControl On only ignores Cache-Control: no-cache
and Pragma: no-cache. I'd like to add ignoring Cache-Control: max-age=...
and Cache-Control: min-fresh=... as well.
This would give
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:57:55AM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently CacheIgnoreCacheControl On only ignores Cache-Control: no-cache
> and Pragma: no-cache. I'd like to add ignoring Cache-Control: max-age=...
> and Cache-Control: min-fresh=... as well.
>
> This would give the admi
Hi,
Currently CacheIgnoreCacheControl On only ignores Cache-Control: no-cache
and Pragma: no-cache. I'd like to add ignoring Cache-Control: max-age=...
and Cache-Control: min-fresh=... as well.
This would give the admin more control, and would also make the directive
slightly more intuitive IMO.
21 matches
Mail list logo
