Re: Separate module for User-Agent header (was Re: Proposal: we add new bugzilla component for webRTC stuff?)

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Brian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> One failure that added bloat that I'm partially guilty for is the
>> Accept header. Wouldn't you say good riddance to Accept if we could
>> as far as site compat goes?
>
> I meant that it would be great to have U-A in a module that people didn't see Necko team as being responsible for, because of the flamewars around it. Accept-* is relatively drama-free.
>
> However, perhaps we still need to closely track changes to User-Agent. In particular, do we need to do anything w.r.t. invalidating entries in the cache when User-Agent and/or other request headers change? I hope that we don't store all these request headers in each cache entry. But, if we don't, then we need to automatically invalidate entries that vary depending on these headers every time they change. (And we need to assume an implicit "Vary: User-Agent" on every cached response, considering how often Vary: User-Agent is wrongly omitted.)

Yeah, we don't store all request headers. We store a hash of the
cookie header, and we store all headers that were specified in Vary.

-christian