Why is no-cache ignored on pending objects?

There is a section in the clientProcessRequest2() on cache hit processing
relating to the no-cache flags on requests for STORE_PENDING objects which
I do not quite get what it is about, and the CVS log comment does not make
me any wiser.. what is done simply looks wrong to me, or at least missing
some condition explaining when it should be done.

Why are we doing this? As I see it we certainly do not want to ignore
no-cache on STORE_PENDING just because Squid is not build with
--disable-http-violations. Ignoring no-cache is rather disrupting and
should only be done by explicit configuration.

I will do some more experiments to verify if this piece of code is doing
what is says. If it is it will go away promptly.

Regards
Henrik

revision 1.419
date: 1998/10/19 05:31:13; author: wessels; state: Exp; lines: +10 -6
finally tested and fixed HIT/PENDING hacks
=============================================================================

1.406 (wessels 03-Oct-98): }
1.386 (wessels 21-Aug-98): #if HTTP_VIOLATIONS
1.419 (wessels 19-Oct-98): if (e->store_status == STORE_PENDING) {
1.419 (wessels 19-Oct-98): if (r->flags.nocache || r->flags.nocache_hack) {
1.419 (wessels 19-Oct-98): debug(33, 3) ("Clearing no-cache for STORE_PENDING request\n\t%s\n",
1.419 (wessels 19-Oct-98): storeUrl(e));
1.419 (wessels 19-Oct-98): r->flags.nocache = 0;
1.419 (wessels 19-Oct-98): r->flags.nocache_hack = 0;
1.419 (wessels 19-Oct-98): }
1.406 (wessels 03-Oct-98): }
1.386 (wessels 21-Aug-98): #endif
1.406 (wessels 03-Oct-98): if (r->flags.nocache) {
Received on Sun Dec 21 2003 - 07:46:56 MST