Bug #1585
mod_compress will append etags header even if etags is disabled
| Status: | Invalid | Start: | ||
| Priority: | High | Due date: | ||
| Assigned to: | - | % Done: | 0% |
|
| Category: | mod_compress | |||
| Target version: | - | |||
Description
When use static-file.etags="disable" to disable etags header in config file, response that encoded by mod_compress still append etags header.
385 buffer_append_string_buffer(p->ofn, sce->etag);
It is seems that mod_compress will not check the options of etags.
History
Updated by georgexsh about 1 year ago
672 etag_mutate(con->physical.etag, sce->etag);
673 response_header_overwrite(srv, con, CONST_STR_LEN("ETag"), CONST_BUF_LEN(con->physical.etag));
Updated by stbuehler 11 months ago
- Status changed from New to Fixed
- Resolution set to invalid
Why would you disable etags if you need mod_compress? And i don't like hacks :)
And why should static-file.etags influence mod_compress?
Updated by petitchevalroux 6 months ago
@stbuehler he wants to disable etags for the same reason the static-file.etags has been created (http://redmine.lighttpd.net/issues/show/1209).
To resume : In multiple server configuration Etags are not the same for all the webserver. (May be they are with le mod_compress etags generation algorithm, I do not know ...)
"And why should static-file.etags influence mod_compress?"
May be there should be a compress.etags disable options.
Tell me if i am wrong, I just want to have more explanation about why disabling etags in mod_compress looks so crazy ;)
Updated by georgexsh about 1 month ago
stbuehler wrote:
Why would you disable etags if you need mod_compress? And i don't like hacks :)
And why should static-file.etags influence mod_compress?
@stbuehler why you think disable etags for mod_compress is a bad idea? could you explain more on it
Although let static-file.etags disable etags for mod_compres is not as nice as add a new config options to control it, but I don't think disabling etags in mod_compress sounds wired.
Updated by kees 8 days ago
stbuehler wrote:
Why would you disable etags if you need mod_compress? And i don't like hacks :)
And why should static-file.etags influence mod_compress?
To the first; to save bandwidth; In a multiple server farm etags don't do much good, and they are kinda redundant if you use mtime/size only. So to save bandwidth, i disable them. See also http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#etags
We also use mod_compress to lower our bandwidth even more, however i'm getting a bit sick of having to comment out the ETag line and recompile lighty with that single change for every upgrade i do.
So it should either be influenced by static-file.etags, or another setting, which would do exactly the same, but takes up more configuration file space. I for one cannot believe it if someone would want to disable static-file etags, but wouldn't mind if mod_compress overrules their 'no-etag' decision and adds ETags without bothering to look at any relevant config options.