I can disable header caching and see what happens, I'll add an option for this
in the next X15 release.
Nevertheless I don't know how much this is interesting in real life, since on
the internet most static pages are cached on proxies. I agree that the
RFC asks for a date for the original response, but once the response is cached
what does this date mean?
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i noticed one weirdness in the Date-field handling of X15. X15 appears to
> cache the Date field too, which is contrary to RFCs:
> earth2:~> wget -s http://localhost/index.html -O - 2>/dev/null | grep Date
> Date: Sat Apr 28 10:15:14 2001
> earth2:~> date
> Sat Apr 28 10:32:40 CEST 2001
> ie. there is already a 15 minutes difference between the 'origin date of
> the reply' and the actual date of the reply. (i started X15 up 15 minutes
> per RFC 2616:
> The Date general-header field represents the date and time at which the
> message was originated, [...]
> Origin servers MUST include a Date header field in all responses, [...]
> i considered the caching of the Date field for TUX too, and avoided it
> exactly due to this issue, to not violate this 'MUST' item in the RFC. It
> can be reasonably expected from a web server to have a 1-second accurate
> Date: field.
> the header-caching in X15 gives it an edge against TUX, obviously, but IMO
> it's a questionable practice.
> if caching of headers was be allowed then we could the obvious trick of
> sendfile()ing complete web replies (first header, then body).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:23 EST