Re: [PATCH] Cache-Control overwriting hack

I'm neutral on this. Chris, the what that Robert talks about is what I
had originally thought, but I'm not dead-set either way...

On 05/05/2009, at 12:25 PM, Robert Collins wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 12:17 +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> The functionality? Very much so; I've been thinking about adding this
>> sort of thing for a while. Very useful if you're running an
>> accelerator.
>
> No, a rewrite of the approach - seems to me that a functional version
> many things support >> a new version that few things support.
>
> That said, I did have one concern - I think its clearer to say:
> 'surrogates use this header, clients get the original cache-control',
> than to say:
> 'surrogates use cache-control, and if there is a header X they replace
> cache-control with X'.
>
> The latter will be harder to debug by network traces I think.
>
> -Rob

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com