Re: Is Expires fix on in 1.1.22?

From: Henrik Nordstrom <>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 15:59:35 +0200

Dancer wrote:
> I already have code for 1.1.(20-ish) that prevents implicit or
> explicit refreshing of objects that match certain refresh_pattern
> rules (magic 'max' age of 1).

Sounds like a handy feature if implemented in a nicer manner (i.e. use a
explicit option keyword instead of magic values).

> 2) I subscribe to unofficial RFC -1: "Know when to break the rules. Do
> it carefully. Do it cleanly. Do it knowing what you are letting
> yourself in for."

I agree with this, and this is why I don't like the current (1.1.22,
1.2b22) refresh_pattern behaviour. It was to easy to override Expires:
without being aware that this is a protocol violation (or even that it
is overridden)

Henrik Nordström
Sparetime Squid Hacker
Received on Sun Jul 12 1998 - 07:12:30 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:41:05 MST