Re: Cache-Control: no-store

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Bjarne <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok - I'll sum up my understanding of these issues
> but grab the opportunity to raise a few questions:
>
> "Cache-Control: no-store" on a response: Entry is
> stored in mem-cache in order to be used by view-
> source, but never reused for subsequent requests.

yes

> It doesn't seem like we handle "no-store" on requests
> - do we want to do that? (Rfc2616 explicitly allows it.)

Keep in mind that RFC 2616 often means proxy servers when it talks
about caches. I don't think it makes any sense to let necko handle a
Cache-Control request header, because this will be application
generated, and the INHIBIT_CACHING header is a much easier way to
specify that. Do you have any specific use case for this in mind?

> nsIRequest.INHIBIT_PERSISTENT_CACHING: Entry is stored
> in mem-cache and can be reused for subsequent requests,
> including from view-source.

indeed

> nsIRequest.INHIBIT_CACHING: Entry is not stored anywhere.
> However, if an existing entry is found in the cache it can
> be reused to satisfy this request.
>  - What do we do with an existing cached request after
>    reading it?

Nothing. We leave it alone.

>  - How should view-source (if relevant!) handle such
>    resources if there was no existing cached entry?

Good question, I think right now we reload the page, and I think that
seems most reasonable? That said, INHIBIT_CACHING is rarely used for
HTML requests.

>  - How is this different from "Cache-Control: no-store"
>    (except for the view-source)?

Should be mostly the same, I think.

-christian

>
> Regards,
> - Bjarne
>
>
> On 11/30/2011 11:15 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Bjarne<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> [ Forwarded from a mail-thread on necko-devs.
>>>
>>> The topic is how to understand the http-header
>>> "Cache-Control: no-store". ]
>>>
>>> So, if I understand you both correctly, the
>>> expected behaviour is to not store such responses
>>> at all, not even in the mem-cache?
>>
>>
>> We have to store it in the memory cache so that view-source works
>> correctly. We just never reuse it.
>>
>>> What about our nsIRequest.INHIBIT_PERSISTENT_CACHING
>>> flag? Should we allow responses to such requests to
>>> be stored in mem-cache?
>>
>>
>> Yes. That's how this flag is documented to work, and how would it
>> differ from INHIBIT_CACHING otherwise?
>>
>> -christian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev-tech-network mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-network mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network