Re:Re: My opinions on nocache and nocache_hack. :-)

No, they are not the same. Both indicates the user has requested the
object must not be from the cache, but in case of nocache_hack there
is squid.conf rules which may override the request.

On Saturday 27 April 2002 14:20, maer727@sohu.com wrote:
> Thanks, Henrik pal!
>
> I think nocache_hack means the cache should not cache the object.
> I mean the meaning of no_cache and nocache_hack are the same.
>
> Am I correct?
>
> Best regards,
> George Ma
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Henrik Nordstrom
> To: maer727@sohu.com
> Cc: squid-dev@squid-cache.org
> Subject: Re: My opinions on nocache and nocache_hack. :-)
> Sent: Sat Apr 27 15:43:25 CST 2002
>
> > maer727@sohu.com wrote:
> > > Hi, pals!
> > >
> > > After reading severals of source codes, I think nocache_hack is
> > > the same as nocache if HTTP_VIOLATIONS is defined. I have met
> > > with serveral cases where we treat the two variables the same
> > > if HTTP_VIOLATIONS is defined.
> > >
> > > Am I correct?
> >
> > Not entirely. nocache_hack is a special mode of dealing with
> > no_cache. See the following code segment from client_side.c where
> > the two flags are set in the request:
> >
> > if (no_cache) {
> > #if HTTP_VIOLATIONS
> > if (Config.onoff.reload_into_ims)
> > request->flags.nocache_hack = 1;
> > else if (refresh_nocache_hack)
> > request->flags.nocache_hack = 1;
> > else
> > #endif
> > request->flags.nocache = 1;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Config.onoff.reload_into_ims and refresh_nocache_hack depends on
> > your squid.conf configuration (reload_into_ims, or the use of
> > no-cache related options to refresh_pattern).
> >
> > Regards
> > Henrik
Received on Sat Apr 27 2002 - 16:37:19 MDT