Since nobody has replied so, I looked into its supposed source code: http://lxr.webperf.org/source.cgi/modules/cache/cache_util.c The logic seems to be like this: 1. If a url matches ANY of the CacheDisable entries, don't cache it and END of program. 2. Else if a url matches ANY of the CacheEnable entries, cache it and End of program. 3. Else don't cache it and End of Program. Based on the code, I conclude: 1. Order of CacheEnable and CacheDisable doesn't matter - they can be mixed in any order. 2. CacheDisable takes higher priority over CacheEnable, a conservative and prudent approach (which I happen to agree in lieu of a more sophisticated water-down rule system as in Squid). Any comments? -jd On 6/13/05, john doe <johndoe2k@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > By reading the apach2 doc, it's not clear what would happen if a > mixture of CacheEnable and CacheDisable is present in the conf file. > Consider the following two examples: > Example1: > CacheEnable / > CacheDisable /cgi > Example2: > CacheDisable /cgi > CacheEnable / > In either case, is /cgi cached? > -jd > --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|