Specification out of date?

[Ricardo Newbery]

On Mar 20, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:

> Ricardo Newbery <ric at digitalmarbles.com> writes:
>> If an authenticated request comes in and I have a valid cached copy,
>> Varnish should not return the cached copy *unless* the copy  
>> contains a
>> public' token.  It's not enough that Varnish previously tested for
>> the public token before insertion as the previous request may have
>> been a regular non-authenticated request which should be cached
>> regardless.  So I need to test for the public token before both
>> insertion and delivery from cache.
>
> I still don't understand why you want to go from hit to fetch.  Just
> pass it.


Because a pass will not store the response in cache when it otherwise  
should if it contains a public token.

Hmm, perhaps I'm making some error in logic.

If an item is in the cache and it doesn't have a 'public' token, then  
can I safely assume that authenticated version of the same item will  
also not contain a 'public' token?  My first thought was that I can't  
make this assumption.  But it's late now and my thinking is getting  
fuzzy.  I'll have to pick this up again later.

But if I tentatively accept this assumption for now, then do you see  
any problem with the same solution but with a 'pass' instead of  
'fetch'?  Like so...

1) Remove from vcl_recv the following...

              if (req.http.Authenticate || req.http.Cookie) {
                  pass;
              }

2) Add to vcl_hit the following (after the !obj.cacheable test)...

              if (obj.http.Cache-Control ~ "public" ) {
                  deliver;
              }
              if (req.http.Authenticate) {
                  pass;
              }

3) Add to vcl_fetch the following (after the other tests)...

              if (obj.http.Cache-Control ~ "public" ) {
                  insert;
              }
              if (req.http.Authenticate) {
                  pass;
              }