durusmail: quixote-users: proposition for a better Browser caching mechanism
proposition for a better Browser caching mechanism
2005-05-15
2005-05-17
2005-05-17
2005-05-19
2005-05-22
proposition for a better Browser caching mechanism
vincent delft
2005-05-17
--- Neil Schemenauer  wrote:
> Not all Quixote servers speak HTTP/1.1.  I think we
> should stick to
> HTTP/1.0 if possible (the Host header is one
> exception).

I'm sorry, I don't catch your point. Webservers send
headers and content to browsers. I'm just asking to
replace the "expires" by "cache-control".

To be sure, I've tested it with medusa, Twisted and
scgi; and it works.

I think that all python webservers that send http
headrs will be able to do it.

The problem is more on the browser side... Are they
ready to interpret correctly "Cache-control".


>  Is there
> some reason you can't set the date on your server?
>
I don't understand very well my problem (I'm with
Gentoo). It's like my clock run slowly. Every hour I
"loose" 5 minutes. Answers on internet are not clear;
some are saying that I must recompile with some
parameters, but I have them. On the other hand I'm on
a pentium 300Mhz ... thus take lot of time to
recompile.
As a work around I've installed a NTP service that
resynch clock on every hour. Except for my webserver,
the clock problem does not really annoye me.



vincent













__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
reply