Re: Proposed refresh algorithm changes

On 21 Jul 98, at 1:34, Henrik Nordstrom <hno@hem.passagen.se> wrote:

> Duane Wessels wrote:
>
> > I thought we would call that
> >
> > violate_http_rfc_refresh_rules_pattern
>
>
> I kinf of like what I did in my last 1.1.22 patch..
>
> refresh_pattern http://www.microsoft.com 60 20% 4320 override-expires
>
> What I do not like is how I stored the flag (I negated the min value,
> which is ugly and does not work for everyone). The structure should be
> extended with a flag for this purpose, and possibly more as people find
> ways they'd like to tweak things. One additional flag that immediately
> pops into my mind is to override last-modified but not expired
> (override-modified ?).

 about flags, to conserve structure size, we might use lowest 1-2 bits
 of any relevant timestamp for bit-flags. We loose 1-4 sec on precision
 which is not a very big issue I guess.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Andres Kroonmaa mail: andre@online.ee
  Network Manager
  Organization: MicroLink Online Tel: 6308 909
  Tallinn, Sakala 19 Pho: +372 6308 909
  Estonia, EE0001 http://www.online.ee Fax: +372 6308 901
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:15:51 MDT