From a61b0e8bd89633fa9ee3703cee41bcfb60842d34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: phk Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:53:40 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Explanation git-svn-id: svn+ssh://projects.linpro.no/svn/varnish/trunk@3045 d4fa192b-c00b-0410-8231-f00ffab90ce4 --- varnish-cache/bin/varnishd/rfc2616.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/varnish-cache/bin/varnishd/rfc2616.c b/varnish-cache/bin/varnishd/rfc2616.c index 961e7f9c..1f4383b6 100644 --- a/varnish-cache/bin/varnishd/rfc2616.c +++ b/varnish-cache/bin/varnishd/rfc2616.c @@ -159,6 +159,14 @@ RFC2616_Ttl(const struct sess *sp, const struct http *hp, struct object *obj) return (ttd); } +/* + * We could move this policy to vcl_fetch{} now but I have decided to leave + * it here for the POLA principle. It is not credible to think that a + * majority of our uses will change the cacheability decision, so moving + * it to VCL would just make the average and median vcl_fetch{} implementation + * harder for people to write. Instead the minority who want to override + * the RFC2616 mandated behaviour, can do so in their vcl_fetch{} + */ int RFC2616_cache_policy(const struct sess *sp, const struct http *hp) { -- 2.39.5