Duane Wessels wrote:
>
> /* Any 2xx reply should eject previously cached entities... */
>
> So an uncachable 206 reply ejects a valid, cachable 200 reply?
I think so yes. It has to do with serialization of object versions, and
if a 206 reply indicates that there exists an newer object than what is
in the cache then the cached object is stale.
We need not to actually eject the cached object but it must at least be
marked as stale to require revalidation on the next request.
/Henrik
Received on Wed Oct 06 1999 - 03:48:40 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:12:18 MST