W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-lib@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Negative last modified

From: olga <olga@goliath.eai.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:48:56 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <XFMail.990126124856.olga@eai.com>
To: www-lib@w3.org
Yes, I found that too. The time stamp on that particular file was wrong.
Though I am in Central time zone. And still 304 is not returned even if time is
positive. File is just reloaded. If I use HTCacheFilter 304 is returned (mayb
e it relies on etag only) but immediately w3c dumps the core in freeng HTMIME
stream. "Purify" shows several freed memody reads in w3c before that happens.

So if no HTCacheFilter but HT_C_IMS - no 304,
If HTCacheFilter (and HT_C_IMS added) - 304 and coredump. 

The two versions only differ in that in second I am adding one line:

        HTNet_deleteAfter(HTCacheFilter)

to initLib function after "HTProfile_newClient()".

And after that - no coredumps, no freed memory reads. If I put it back -
coredump. It looks like HTCacheFilter and adding HT_C_IMC clash when used
together(?). Maybe second uses the same HTMIME stream which was freed by
HTCacheFilter.

Anyway something is still wrong there. And 304 is not returned in presence of
If-modified-since header.

Thanks for your help,

Olga.

On 26-Jan-99 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> 
> olga wrote:
> 
>> As I understand, on starting the w3c library the .index is read and anchors
>> are
>> created for all the files in cache. When the HT_C_IMS header is created - an
>> anchor for the location is referenced for LM date. In those parts everything
>> goes throug the library - I have not changed anything there...
>> 
>> There is what is in the meta-file:
>> 
>> olga@nile 58: more AAAa0000a.meta
>> Content-Type: application/x-jt
>> Content-Length: 5844
>> Accept-Ranges: bytes
>> ETag: "3c000ac-16d4-0
>> Last-Modified: Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
>> Server: Apache/1.3.1 (Unix)
>> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:32:45 GMT
> 
> Oh, I see - this is a very old date - in fact it turns out to be -3600
> in local time if you are in ET timezone. This is why the test lm > 0
> fails and the date isn't written. Are you sure, this is really the lm
> date you want?
> 
> Henrik

----------------------------------
E-Mail: olga <olga@eai.com>
Date: 26-Jan-99
Time: 12:17:04

This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 26 January 1999 13:45:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:18:28 GMT