227083 - if browser.cache.memory.enable is set to false, this page fails to render at all.

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 184304

(Core :: Networking: Cache, defect)

Description

[Dave Dyer]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031030
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031030

browser.cache.memory.enable = false shouldn't prevent 
any page from rendering at all, right?  This bug is present
in many versions of mozilla and is shared with netscape.

This obscure config variable is being manipulated as a workaround
until bug 204374 is fixed

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. use about:config to see and set the variable to false
2. go to the page
3.

Actual Results:  
nothing happens.

Expected Results:  
the page should display

Comment 1

[Lorenzo Colitti]

I can reproduce this with a 20031122 Firebird on XP. Confirming, setting
component to cache for now.

Comment 2

[Christian :Biesinger (don't email me, ping me on IRC)]

lorenzo, please also reassign when changing component

Comment 3

[Dave Dyer]

another web page that fails to display is 
http://www.fotolog.net/

Comment 4

[Daniel de Wildt]

Both servers has a "Pragma: no-cache" in the response headers, but websites with
the "Pragma"-metatag still works.
(http://www.shutterfly.com/ is redirected to http://www.shutterfly.com/index.jsp
which responses the "Pragma: no-cache" header.)

Did somebody found a site with "Pragma: no-cache" but correct shown content?

Comment 5

[Tobias Becker]

This behavior is also described in bug 184304.

Comment 6

[David G King]

This may be a dup, but comment #4 seems to point to a different cause.

Comment 7

[Daniel de Wildt]

In addition to comment 4, the both examples also sent a "Cache-Control:
no-cache". Also all examples from bug 184304 has a "Pragma: no-cache" and shows
no content when I disabled the memory cache.
Marking this bug as duplicate cause bug 184304 comment 1

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 183404 ***

Comment 8

[Daniel de Wildt]

Sorry, wrong duped to wrong bug.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 184304 ***