Hello!

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 01:06:22PM -0800, Piotr Sikora wrote:

> Hey Maxim,
>
> > I would rather not, for two reasons:
> >
> > - I would actually like to see support for subsecond cache
> > validity times added eventually (unlikely to happen in the near
> > future, but still).
>
> That's valid reason, but it's going to be of rather limited use,
> because neither "Expires" nor "Cache-Control" can request such
> validity.

I've seen more than one attempt to use nginx for microcaching, and
this looks like a perfectly valid use case which will benefit from
subsecond times a lot.

> Also, this field has been there since the introduction of cache over 5
> years ago, just wasting I/O, so I'd argue that there is no reason to
> keep it, unless it's being used (which is not). It can always be added
> later on, when it's needed.

From I/O point of view, there is no difference as there is a
padding anyway.

--
Maxim Dounin
http://nginx.org/

_______________________________________________
nginx-devel mailing list
nginx-devel@nginx.org
http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel