You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2002/09/13 21:51:51 UTC
RE: mod_disk_cache backward compatibility? Re: [PATCH]
[UPDATED] Re: Cached response: 304 send as 200
At 02:42 PM 9/13/2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > Kris Verbeeck wrote:
> >
> > Thanks! One more issue before I commit this...
> > The change will require that users clear their file
> > caches. Can any of the mod_cache hackers give me a
> > second opinion on this? Since mod_file_cache is still
> > in experimental state, it reasonable to just make the
> > change and document the need to clear one's file cache
> > when installing 2.0.4. Or do we need to provide some
> > automated checking for this in mod_disk_cache (like
> > adding a magic number and format version number in
> > the file header)?
>
>Document the change and inform folks to clear their file cache.
Folks don't read the docs. We know it, just look at the bugzilla
database. A magic number is much more appropriate, and will
make it possible to update or read old formats in the future.
Bill
Re: mod_disk_cache backward compatibility? Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] Re: Cached response: 304 send as 200
Posted by David Burry <db...@tagnet.org>.
> Folks don't read the docs. We know it, just look at the bugzilla
> database. A magic number is much more appropriate, and will
> make it possible to update or read old formats in the future.
A magic number is a great generic efficient simple way to detect the problem
of "omigod, the format's changed," report it, and possibly blow it away
automatically if that can be done efficiently, but I think it would be bad
to clutter up the code base with a lot of code to read all the old formats.
Dave
RE: mod_disk_cache backward compatibility? Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED]Re: Cached response: 304 send as 200
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> For now, I've left the status line in the cache header; the
> reader code just reads that line and ignores it. (Thanks to
> Kris for the patch.)
>
> Is there any reason why the header and the content for a cache
> entry are stored in two separate files?
Not really.
> Concatenating them into
> the same file would allow for faster reads, faster cache updates,
> and fewer inodes per cache entry.
+1
Bill
RE: mod_disk_cache backward compatibility? Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED]
Re: Cached response: 304 send as 200
Posted by Brian Pane <br...@apache.org>.
For now, I've left the status line in the cache header; the
reader code just reads that line and ignores it. (Thanks to
Kris for the patch.)
Is there any reason why the header and the content for a cache
entry are stored in two separate files? Concatenating them into
the same file would allow for faster reads, faster cache updates,
and fewer inodes per cache entry.
Brian
On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 13:22, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 3:52 PM
> > To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: mod_disk_cache backward compatibility? Re: [PATCH]
> > [UPDATED] Re: Cached response: 304 send as 200
> >
> >
> > At 02:42 PM 9/13/2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > > Kris Verbeeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks! One more issue before I commit this...
> > > > The change will require that users clear their file
> > > > caches. Can any of the mod_cache hackers give me a
> > > > second opinion on this? Since mod_file_cache is still
> > > > in experimental state, it reasonable to just make the
> > > > change and document the need to clear one's file cache
> > > > when installing 2.0.4. Or do we need to provide some
> > > > automated checking for this in mod_disk_cache (like
> > > > adding a magic number and format version number in
> > > > the file header)?
> > >
> > >Document the change and inform folks to clear their file cache.
> >
> > Folks don't read the docs. We know it, just look at the bugzilla
> > database. A magic number is much more appropriate, and will
> > make it possible to update or read old formats in the future.
> >
> > Bill
>
> I am really not keen on crufting up the codebase to support backward
> compatability with a module that was unusable up until 2.0.40 and is
> experimental in 2.0.40.
>
> Bill
RE: mod_disk_cache backward compatibility? Re: [PATCH] [UPDATED] Re: Cached response: 304 send as 200
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 3:52 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Cc: dev@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: RE: mod_disk_cache backward compatibility? Re: [PATCH]
> [UPDATED] Re: Cached response: 304 send as 200
>
>
> At 02:42 PM 9/13/2002, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > Kris Verbeeck wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks! One more issue before I commit this...
> > > The change will require that users clear their file
> > > caches. Can any of the mod_cache hackers give me a
> > > second opinion on this? Since mod_file_cache is still
> > > in experimental state, it reasonable to just make the
> > > change and document the need to clear one's file cache
> > > when installing 2.0.4. Or do we need to provide some
> > > automated checking for this in mod_disk_cache (like
> > > adding a magic number and format version number in
> > > the file header)?
> >
> >Document the change and inform folks to clear their file cache.
>
> Folks don't read the docs. We know it, just look at the bugzilla
> database. A magic number is much more appropriate, and will
> make it possible to update or read old formats in the future.
>
> Bill
I am really not keen on crufting up the codebase to support backward
compatability with a module that was unusable up until 2.0.40 and is
experimental in 2.0.40.
Bill