Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Dave Kristol: "no one supports Digest"
• Previous message: rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com: "Memphis followup"
• In reply to: Drazen Kacar: "Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""
• Next in thread: Ari Luotonen: "Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""

I wrote:

> While simply adding "Cache-control: public" to a response does
> imply that it is cachable, this doesn't say enough.  I.e., how
> long is the response "fresh"?  It seems more useful, in general,
> to use
> 	Cache-control: max-age=3600
> (or whatever), since this also implies cachability, but it also
> gives more explicit information to the cache.

Drazen Kacar <dave@public.srce.hr> writes:

    What if freshness is infinite?

Then send something like
	Cache-control: max-age=99999999
which isn't exactly "infinite", but (at about 3 years) is close
enough for any realistic cache.

-Jeff

• Next message: Dave Kristol: "no one supports Digest"
• Previous message: rlgray@raleigh.ibm.com: "Memphis followup"
• In reply to: Drazen Kacar: "Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""
• Next in thread: Ari Luotonen: "Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI""