Re: [PATCH] Cache-Control overwriting hack

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