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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Detta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E4r?= en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
