Cross-verb cache invalidation (POST/PUT invalidates GET)

[Per Buer]

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Jonathan Matthews <contact at jpluscplusm.com
> wrote:

> So, coming back to the initial naive implementation, it looks like it
> could be correct. But what have I missed? There's got to be some
> complication to explain why this (or something like it) isn't in the
> default VCL - was a decision taken not to adhere to section 13.10 of
> RFC2616 at some point in the past?
>

We won't do this because it would totally break if you have more then one
Varnish servers. It's the backend job to notify the caches when the content
actually changes.


-- 
Per Buer, CEO
Phone: +47 21 98 92 61 / Mobile: +47 958 39 117 / Skype: per.buer
*Varnish makes websites fly!*
Whitepapers <http://www.varnish-software.com/whitepapers> |
Video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7t2Sp174eI> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/varnishsoftware>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-misc/attachments/20110516/60e274a1/attachment-0003.html>