Re: Something about the caching feature in 0.9.x

On 22 nov. 07, at 06:53, Karim A. wrote:
> I actually don't agree with bug 4998.
> IMHO it's not a bug at all.
>
> Why? Because it's up to the server to decide for
> what it will be used.

Note that you have to take into account intermediate caching proxies.  
I believe that was the original reason for this.

> The one thing that's somehow misbehaving
> is the server for not being clear about its
> intended use: dev or production?

Seen differently: when I validate a page, I want to know what the  
latest state of the page is. Especially if I made some recent  
modifications, it would be confusing and frustrating to give the  
validation result for an old version of the content.

For this reason, I think the current setup is right. Which doesn't  
mean we can't upgrade it with an internal cache for the validator and  
an if-modified-since header, at some point. Would you like to look  
into it?

-- 
olivier