Yeah, that's what I meant. In order to make 304 cacheable in my situation, the 302 needs to be first cached. I was just trying to make sure there is no code path that 304 can only become cacheable if the object is 200 but not 302 since that has never been the case. Thanks, --Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: Henrik Nordstrom [mailto:hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:35 PM > To: Chris Fong > Cc: Henrik Nordstrom; squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: 302 response becomes not cacheable with > "if-modified-since" header? > > > On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Chris Fong wrote: > > > Thanks for the answer. Is it true that once 302 becomes > > cacheable, the 304 response (if-modified-since >= last-modified) > > will become cacheable as well? > > No. The two are completely different issues. > > 304 is cacheable today, but only if the object as such is > already cached. > > 302 is also cacheable in certain situations, but > if-modified-since does > not work towards cached 302 responses. > > Regards > Henrik > x > >
