Inconsistency about cache's valid_sec

[Peng Fang]

got it, thank you.

2017-07-20 21:11 GMT+08:00 Maxim Dounin <mdounin at mdounin.ru>:

> Hello!
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:22:46AM +0800, Peng Fang wrote:
>
> > From my side, this is a compromise for reality. Because not all upstream
> > servers are controlled by ourselves, especially for a 3rd CDN provider.
> > There are many customers who want to get highly customized expiration
> > settings, for example, 10 senconds for */a.jpg, 1 minite for */b.jpg, 10
> > minites for *.zip and so on,but they don't what to control thsese
> settings
> > by sending Cache-Control family headers. So we have implemented a
> delicate
> > logic in header filters supportting these requirements for every request.
> >
> > Since it does not meet the standards, there is indeed no reson for you to
> > change the existed code logic. We coud totaly ignore and hide
> cache-control
> > family headers for these customuers, and keep on setting valid_sec in
> > header filters.
> >
> > Woud you mind giving some advices for this kind of scenario? Thanks very
> > much.
>
> An obvious though suboptimal solution would be to use a separate
> proxy layer which will add appropriate headers to control caching.
>
> --
> Maxim Dounin
> http://nginx.org/
> _______________________________________________
> nginx-devel mailing list
> nginx-devel at nginx.org
> http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/attachments/20170720/67bfa13c/attachment.html>