- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:35:52 +1100
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Roy, Ah, I'm not familiar with mod_jk; does it have its own protocol to communicate from the front-end to the back-end? > Here's the configuration: Frontend reverse caching proxy server > running httpd > 2.2.2, prefork mpm. The backend web server is httpd 1.3.36 with > mod_jk 1.2.15. Also, this fix was sold in the 2.2.2 notes as a change/fix to mod_cache (which is what piqued my interest in the first place); > *) mod_cache: Do not overwrite the Content-Type in the cache, for > successfully revalidated cached objects. PR 39647. Are you saying that mod_cache, when used with a HTTP back-end, *will* replace the Content-Type if a 304 contains a new one? On 2007/02/11, at 7:30 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > 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 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2007 21:36:12 UTC