- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:30:09 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:41 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > However, an implementer has interpreted the stated intent to mean > that a cache should not allow entity headers to be updated by 304s. > See: <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39647>. The problem report is about the internal handling of a gateway response that doesn't even use HTTP, so the text in the spec doesn't apply except in the most abstract sense. > There's a certain logic to both positions. Does anyone recall what > the original intent was, and do we need a clarification here? The intent is that the refreshed cache entry matches what would have been sent in a 200 response. Anything else would be considered an error. In this case, the back-end has an error that is generating a text/html response intermittently, and the unset that Ruediger added is just making sure that the cache filter doesn't interpret the response incorrectly. The right solution is to just fix mod_jk, and I think that was done as well, since masking a back-end error is a bad idea. mod_jk does not use HTTP, so the specification does not apply. ....Roy
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2007 20:30:20 UTC