[MGNLCACHE-4] Items with .cache. in their url should have far future Cache headers set, but do not. Created: 29/Jan/13 Updated: 25/Jun/13 Resolved: 24/Apr/13 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Cache Modules |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | 5.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | 5.0 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Critical |
| Reporter: | Christopher Zimmermann | Assignee: | Jaroslav Simak |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Template: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Acceptance criteria: |
Empty
|
||||||||||||||||
| Task DoD: |
[ ]*
Doc/release notes changes? Comment present?
[ ]*
Downstream builds green?
[ ]*
Solution information and context easily available?
[ ]*
Tests
[ ]*
FixVersion filled and not yet released
[ ] 
Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
|
||||||||||||||||
| Bug DoR: |
[ ]*
Steps to reproduce, expected, and actual results filled
[ ]*
Affected version filled
|
||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Files such as css and js should be far future cached, there should be a header like: Cache-Control="max-age:525600". As originally implemented in http://jira.magnolia-cms.com/browse/MAGNOLIA-3297 But the files with .cache. in the url do not have any Cache-Control header set. For example look at this file on demopublic: Debugging on my local instance it looks like the executor which gets run for this file is Bypass. Bypass contains two executors. Could it be that the executor.Bypass somehow nullifies the effect of the setExpirationHeader? Im not an expert on the Cache module - perhaps there are timing concerns or something else. But it appears to be a problem. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Christopher Zimmermann [ 29/Jan/13 ] |
|
Original implementation. |
| Comment by Christopher Zimmermann [ 29/Jan/13 ] |
|
I notice that on magnolia-cms there is a Cache-Control max-age=900 for a similar file: Its good to have this header - but this is also perhaps incorrect - the farFuture browserCachePolicy is normally much larger. |