tis 2006-11-21 klockan 14:51 -0800 skrev Mohan:
> I understand that the Set_Cookie might be causing some caching problems. 
> But I don't understand why "Cache-Control: max-age=0, must-revalidate, 
> proxy-revalidate" would create a problem. The page gets cached by 
> firefox and IE properly. Has this something to do with private vs shared 
> or public caches ?
Some condensed RFC quotes:
   Servers specify explicit expiration times using either the Expires
   header, or the max-age directive of the Cache-Control header.
      freshness_lifetime = max_age_value
      2. If the response includes the "must-revalidate" cache-control
         directive, the cache MAY use that response in replying to a
         subsequent request. But if the response is stale, all caches
         MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the
         request-headers from the new request to allow the origin server
         to authenticate the new request.
   proxy-revalidate
      The proxy-revalidate directive has the same meaning as the must-
      revalidate directive, except that it does not apply to non-shared
      user agent caches. It can be used on a response to an
> Another question is under what circumstances would squid send a 
> If-None-Match or If-Modified-Since header to the origin server 
> irrespective of the client/browser used to make this request.
When it has a cached copy to validate.
Regards
Henrik
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Fri Dec 01 2006 - 12:00:03 MST