Duane Wessels wrote:
>
> Henrik Nordstrom writes:
>
> >Duane Wessels wrote:
> >
> >> A simple solution hasn't presented itself to me yet.
> >
> >What about doing a expunge each time we get a uncacheable object? Or
> >more precicely: Each time we have retreived a complete object, expunge
> >any old version regardless if the new one is cacheable or not.
>
> You mean if the new, uncachable reply is status code 200 only?
Primary yes, but there are a whole range of other possible replies where
a old cached entry should be removed from the cache..
My list after a quick inspection of RFC 2068, based on the rule "Delete
old cached entry if it seems that the origin server has changed the type
or class of the object"
METHOD == GET
STATUS ==
200 OK
203 Non-Authoritative Information (same as 200)
300 Multiple Choices
301 Moved Permanently
302 Moved Temporarily
403 Forbidden
404 Not Found
405 Method Not Allowed
410 Gone
and unless cache-control says otherwise
401 Unauthorized
/Henrik
Received on Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:15:51 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:11:51 MST