In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "BUSTARRET, Jean-francois" writes: > >Yet http://varnish.projects.linpro.no/wiki/FAQ says "Varnish was written = >from the ground up to be a high performance caching reverse proxy." = >Varnish is a cache, and should follow HTTP/1.1 RFCs.
You're welcome to your opinion :-) We belive we have good arguments for the choices we have made, and as development continues, it is not inconceiveable that Varnish might some time in the future grow a "act like an RFC2616 cache", should somebody code the necessary changes or sponsor somebody else to do so. In the mean time, we try to get the maximum bang out of Varnish and think we have made the correct call on this point. One thing we have heard severalt times is that content providers want to be able to use Cache-Control for client instructions and not penalize their Varnish performance with its settings. There is a draft floating around which defines a "Surrogate-Control" along the lines of "Cache-Control" but it seems to have little backing and even less use. Poul-Henning -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list varnish-dev@projects.linpro.no http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev