[PATCH] Add a flag to mark 304 backend response processing (aka, Backend IMS/INM)

[Geoff Simmons]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 03/10/2015 09:53 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 
>> +	('beresp.is_304',
> 
> I think the name looks ugly-ish, but I can't decide if I think
> there is value in explicitly mentioning 304 vs. more clarity in a
> more descriptive name (beresp.was_refreshed, beresp.refreshed ...)

beresp.not_modified ?
beresp.was_validated ?

304 responses are sometimes referred to as "validating" responses. But
I think I'd vote for beresp.not_modified, since it's a strong reminder
of status code 304.

- -- 
** * * UPLEX - Nils Goroll Systemoptimierung

Scheffelstraße 32
22301 Hamburg

Tel +49 40 2880 5731
Mob +49 176 636 90917
Fax +49 40 42949753

http://uplex.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=RvHx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----