Re: [Polipo-users] Transparent Content Negotiation and Caching

2012-11-04 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
Everything you say is right, as usual. > * The HTTP parser sets cache_control.flags |= CACHE_VARY when the > response contains a Vary header (http_parse.c:1206). I couldn't see > polipo checking the _value_ of the Vary header anywhere, so it clearly > doesn't cache different variation of the

Re: [Polipo-users] Transparent Content Negotiation and Caching

2012-11-04 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
> As I understand it, Polipo caches only one variant for a negotiated > resource and serves this one based on the Vary, Content-* and Accept-* > headers. Is this correct? Yes. > I'd like to implement Transparent Content Negotiation as described in > RFC 2295. Is this a good idea? I personally

Re: [Polipo-users] Memory leak issue in Polipo

2012-11-04 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
> I am using polipo-1.0.4 on my Linux machine. I noticed gradually free > memory on the system is reducing and after some time polipo is arriving in > OOM (Out of Memory) state and gets killed by the Kernel. Can someone > confirmed if there is a bug in the polipo code. Could you please try repro

[Polipo-users] Bug in local interface [was: An analysis...]

2012-11-04 Thread Juliusz Chroboczek
> Will: The current master branch is not release worthy and only you > know why. > > Juliusz: The mysterious bug shall remain mysterious! Heh. > But what is broken about it? Setting a variable in the local interface will sometimes fail to return the reply (the redirect). > How would

Re: [Polipo-users] An analysis of why Polipo is unmaintainable

2012-11-04 Thread David Röthlisberger
On 29 Oct 2012, at 14:12, Fabian Keil wrote: > Another, in my opinion more important, aspect is that there simply > aren't too many people interested in spending a significant amount > of time working on HTTP implementations for free. I know at least one commercial organisation using polipo in its

Re: [Polipo-users] An analysis of why Polipo is unmaintainable

2012-11-04 Thread David Röthlisberger
On 30 Oct 2012, at 16:12, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > * The fact that the current master branch is not release worthy and only > > you know why > > I think I've mentioned this already -- the local interface is broken, > there's a race condition somewhere. Fixing that is probably not a big > jo

Re: [Polipo-users] Transparent Content Negotiation and Caching

2012-11-04 Thread David Röthlisberger
On 21 Oct 2012, at 17:28, Urs Holzer wrote: > I'd like to implement Transparent Content Negotiation as described in > RFC 2295. Is this a good idea? I'm no expert on HTTP, but it seems to me that you would first have to implement normal HTTP 1.1 caching of negotiated responses.[1] (See my analysi