Re: lynx-dev '\' reloading documents

[Leonid Pauzner]

29-May-2003 11:12 Ian Collier wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 10:50:46AM +0900, Henry Nelson wrote:

>>                         In many cases it means that each page from
>> the server is unique, i.e., each time you access the URL, the page
>> that the server returns is different from any page you may have
>> received on previous accesses to the same URL.  A cached document in
>> that situation perhaps needs to have it's base URL time stamped so
>> that its content is not confused with the constantly changing content
>> of the original URL.

> If I view the source then I generally want to see the source of the page
> I'm looking at right now, not the source of the page that would have
> been generated if I'd asked for it right now (and without the Referer
> header, which makes a big difference on certain kinds of site).

You are right.  Henry mix two completely different concepts: source cache
is used for browser' presentation purposes only, the document already
received - it is not a server business whether you will include links to
images or exclude them or change from one to another...
While the proxy is HTTP agent, it should follow HTTP/1.x expiration model -
check timestamps, interpret several HTTP headers (for example, http server
may ask proxy to not store a copy of the document).

The waste of resources is minimal: by default, lynx caches last 10 documents
(HText) in memory, source cache will cache .html either (if stored in
memory, it doubles the memory usage in a worst case).  Compare with MSIE
which stores hundreds and hundreds of images and pages as temp files.


>> I don't have any idea how cacheing of https would work.  Does the cache
>> somehow keep state on the handshake between the server and client?

> It keeps the source of the document which you are viewing - I don't see
> what handshaking has to do with it.

>>                                                                     Along
>> lines that Doug mentioned, I'd be rather concerned about any confidential
>> information that the server may have put into the cached source, and about
>> any information I may have entered into a form.

> But I've already got the document - if anything was confidential then
> it's too late!  No one else is going to see it if it's only cached in
> memory.

>> While most of you probably look upon me as reactionary, I still think that
>> the client should not be doing cacheing at all.  Lynx has so many ways to
>> easily plug into a proxy.  In addition, unlike the past, it is pretty easy
>> for anyone to install a fully compliant and configurable cacheing proxy.
>> It's very much like the recent questions about Lynx's news capabilities.
>> Lynx's news support is totally out-of-date and non-compliant.  Look back
>> in the archives to see the status on that.  Like news, is it worth
>> implementing cacheing if it's not going to be at least as good as what's
>> already available, e.g., squid?

> That's ridiculous...  most Linux installations don't come with squid
> unless you ask for a full or server install, and I'm not about to
> bloat my system with that just so I can use Lynx properly.

> imc

> ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden



; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden