Ole Moller wrote:
> The issue is whether or not the script gives the same output given
> the same input at a later point in time.
If you have this view, then perhaps you should not cache anything.
Someone may update their document.
The issue here is that an application developer may know enought of
updates to the information to be able to provide expiry information from
CGI scripts, similar to how HTTP servers provides expiry information for
plain files. Having application developers aware of expiry information
and cachability is a good thins, and have a default configuration which
makes life unneededly hard for application developers is not.
> Since this is the case in 99% of the urls including a question mark I will
> keep my squid.conf as it is - rather than pollution my cache with 99% junk
> just to respect (your) 1% cache-friendly urls.
Valid reasoning, and fortunately not an issue when Squid 2.2 is
released. Squid 2.2 won't cache objects that needs to be refreshed on
the next request but which can't be validated. This fits all dynaimc cgi
programs not caring about cachability so you may want to reconsider your
standpoint in the near future.
--- Henrik Nordstrom Spare time Squid hackerReceived on Tue Mar 09 1999 - 14:56:45 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:45:11 MST