cache-control is certainly advantageous over older methods, as it certainly does provide finer grain control. Darren L. VanBuren ===================== http://theoks.net/ On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 19:54, Brennan Ashton <bashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Darren VanBuren <onekopaka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> However, browsers cache on EXACT URLs. So if you attach ?2010011023 to >> a URL, it will only be valid until the URL changes or the expiry time >> comes around. >> >> Darren L. VanBuren >> ===================== >> http://theoks.net/ >> > > However if my browser caches http://fedoraproject.org and there is a > static file pointed at called image1.gif, even if you update > fedoraproject.org to point to the static file image1-2.gif instead, > that update will not be seen until fedoraproject.org expires from my > cache and I will still be seeing image1.gif. > > I really think that cache-control is the way to go at least for > content that we want to cache, but also want to have control of all > the time. > > --Brennan Ashton > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list > Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list > _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
