On 07/11/2013 07:44 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 12/07/2013 3:20 a.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote: >> On 07/11/2013 05:03 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>> On 11/07/2013 11:40 p.m., Eliezer Croitoru wrote: >>>> I have been testing quite some time some urls for cachability. <SNIP> >> Sorry about it. >> The problem is that admins and me analyse the access.log and consider a >> X_HIT response to be a valid HIT response. >> I think that the way cache admin analyse the log and understand what the >> log means is different from admin to admin. >> I wanted to explain in a more detailed way the logic I was explaining >> before but since I am not always full of words about it I can describe >> it in couple ways and not touch the other admin. >> >> I wanted to make sure that: >> 1. there is or there isn't a bug related to Vary headers. >> 2. make sure I understand where in plain view without digging into the >> code I understand the bugs and squid behaviour. >> 3. not just talk without a more detailed debug logs. >> 4. prove\show squid 3.2\3 changes that you have mentioned about the >> no-cache directive which should be documented in a more detailed way. >> Since admins dosn't understand it in many cases like I wasn't sure and >> pretty confused about it I believe that it helped and will help others >> understand the issue. >> >> I think that now that the ignore-no-cache was removed there is might be >> a need to add a Warning message while parsing squid.conf that will tell >> admins about the new behaviour of refresh_pattern. > > There is. You see it with -k parse. Thanks! > >> There is the "Removed option ignore-no-cache. Its commonly desired >> behaviour is obsoleted by correct HTTP/1.1 Cache-Control:no-cache >> handling." >> >> But It took me pretty while to actually notice it was there and >> understand the meaning of it. > > Do you have any better wording? > > Amos I will have... And I am writing about it.. It will take sometime but since nobody asked about it yet I assumed they either didn't noticed or noticed but never thought that the effect looks like my description. I still don't have a due date for the new document I am writing but I am working very hard to describe the for the differences between 2.7 which is a legacy. Eliezer
