On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Thomas Ristic wrote:
> I meant if the way I implement the minimum_expiry_time configuration
> option in the tiny patch I attached to my last mail looks sane to you.
Sorry, I did not see the patch.
> It makes sense, yes. But 60 seconds looks like a randomly defined
> default to me. I believe it would be nice to keep this default but make
> it configurable by the user.
Maybe.
>> But in some extreme reverse-proxy/accelerator setups the demands may be
>> different, but I tend to think that even then it is many magnitudes better
>> to fix the web server to allow revalidation of cached objects.
>
> I also think that this is most likely only relevant in accelerator
> setups. In some environments it might be to complicated or costly to
> find out the last modified time.
In almost all situations the web server benefits from returning meaningful
Last-Modified when possible and to also respond to If-Modified-Since.
> So simply telling the accelerator to keep this page for e.g. 30 seconds
> and then fetch a new one might still be a good thing to do.
It all depends on the situation and type of content.
Regards
Henrik
Received on Sat Dec 18 2004 - 07:26:52 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 12:00:02 MST