Re: bugzilla weirdness

On Jan 16, 2008 12:14 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:
> Yeah, Pawel and i noticed this a few days ago.
>
> Could you look at the headers that bugzilla is returning and make
> sure its properly setting invalidation stuff?

Here are the request:
GET /bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2193 HTTP/1.1
Host: www.squid-cache.org

The response when first accessing the bug (with no attachments).
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:08:21 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.6 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.7e-p1 DAV/2
PHP/5.2.5 with Suhosin-Patch
Cache-Control: max-age=86400
Expires: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:08:21 GMT
Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100
Connection: Keep-Alive
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html

The second response (when accessing the bug that has an attachment)

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:19 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.6 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.7e-p1 DAV/2
PHP/5.2.5 with Suhosin-Patch
Cache-Control: max-age=86400
Expires: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:09:19 GMT
Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100
Connection: Keep-Alive
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html

wireshark showed that the second response do list the attachment, but
Firefox did not show it.

Seems that firefox shows an expired entity when it's age is less than 'max-age'.

Am I right?

-- 
Gonzalo A. Arana