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 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
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,
but in the
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
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 is a
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 we have it
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
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.
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 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 have stated
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,
11 matches
Mail list logo
