Re: [PATCH]: mod_cache: don't store headers that will never be used

[Niklas Edmundsson <ni...@acc.umu.se>]

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Niklas Edmundsson wrote:

Any opinions on this?

>>>> Here's a version with a config directive, defaults to disabled.
>>> 
>>> Silly Q; a directive?  Or a env var that can be scoped in interesting
>>> ways using mod_setenvif and/or mod_rewrite?
>>> 
>>> Most of our proxy behavior overrides are in terms of envvars.  They are
>>> much more flexible to being tuned per-browser, per-backend etc.
>> 
>> Directive, envvar, I don't think Niklas cares much.  Can we make up our
>> mind please?
>
> I have no clue on the envvar-stuff, so I don't think I'm qualified to have an 
> opinion. CacheIgnoreCacheControl et al are config directives currently and I 
> have the gut feeling that they should all either be envvar-thingies or config 
> directives, and that starting to mix stuff will only end in confusion and 
> despair ;)
>
> I prefer a config-option that I can set serverwide without too much fuss 
> since we want this behaviour on all files. If this can also be accomplished 
> with envvar-stuff then sure.
>
> One way might be to do a config directive for now, and deal with the 
> envvar-stuff separately.
>
> Related, this config option might also be of interest for mod_disk_cache to 
> enable similar optimizations. What would the "good" way be to accomplish 
> this?
>
> /Nikke
>


/Nikke
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Niklas Edmundsson, Admin @ {acc,hpc2n}.umu.se      |     nikke@acc.umu.se
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Now, what was that magic word? Shazam? <WHAM!> Nah - Garibaldi
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=