Re: Why is no-cache ignored on pending objects?

From: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@dont-contact.us>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:54:10 +0100 (CET)

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> 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.

It does. If an object is STORE_PENDING then no-cache is blindly ignored.
Not good, not to mention violating the HTTP specifications for no-cache.

Even if the object is still STORE_PENDING it does not equal to being a new
fresh object.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Sun Dec 21 2003 - 07:54:12 MST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wed Dec 24 2003 - 12:00:29 MST