Leave a document open that was returned from a POST request. Go about your daily surfing. Try to view source on that page later. Recieve 'expired' warning. As long as the page is open, mozilla should still be able to do any normal operation with it. Print, edit, view source/info.
Forgot to mention. When you rePOST, the new cache entry isn't associated with the original page. Meaning, view source, get warning, click ok, close source, view source again right away, get another warning.
Do you have a testcase?
Changing component. I'm not sure if this should be Session History or Docshell, since it only refers to a currently displayed page. It's also very likely a dup.
Assignee: gordon → radha
Component: Networking: Cache → History: Session
QA Contact: tever → kasumi
Actually, this is in fact cache. We just don't have any way to "pin" entries in the cache. Nor should we, in my opinion. The original source is NOT actually needed once the page has been rendered, except in the extreme edge case of someone using "view source". People who do that should realize that the source won't always be available anymore.
Assignee: radha → darin
Component: History: Session → Networking: Cache
QA Contact: kasumi → core.networking.cache
(In reply to comment #4) > Actually, this is in fact cache. We just don't have any way to "pin" entries in > the cache. please see http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/netwerk/base/public/nsICachingChannel.idl#58
That doesn't work in general (specifically, for pages without POST data), last I checked. Note that SetCacheToken is not implemented, so even if it worked it wouldn't be usable as things stand.
(In reply to comment #4) > Actually, this is in fact cache. We just don't have any way to "pin" entries in > the cache. Nor should we, in my opinion. The original source is NOT actually > needed once the page has been rendered, except in the extreme edge case of > someone using "view source". People who do that should realize that the source > won't always be available anymore. Why? This is implementable, and as far as I can see, IS implemented in Internet Explorer. Please explain to me the DISadvantage of implementing this. Note that I'm not talking about coding difficulty of implementation - assuming this could be implemented perfectly and instantly, what problem(s) would it cause, as it would indeed fix the 'view source' problem (and view source is actually used by a decent number of webpage designers who DO want the guarantee that the source used to render any open webpage will always be locally cached, including me). CCing self.
> what problem(s) would it cause It'd cause the problem that when we need space in the cache for new content it's not there because we can't evict the old page (note that if there is space already, then there are no issues with view-source either, since the cache entry will just stick about). In other words, it makes the cache less efficient.
since bug 262350 now covers the (necko part of the) backend, I'll morph this into a docshell bug. I do think that fixing this would be desirable, btw... (and bz, you sounded like you did too on irc recently?)
Assignee: darin → adamlock
Component: Networking: Cache → Embedding: Docshell
Depends on: 262350
QA Contact: core.networking.cache → adamlock
I think there are cases it could be useful, yes, as a general API thing. I'd have to see some data on how it does in the real world to see whether we want session history to hold on to cache tokens...
maybe it should be docshell which holds onto the token, rather than shistory (i.e. only store for the document being displayed currently)
That doesn't make much sense to me, frankly... I use back and then view source quite as much as I use view-source.
Strange - I actually don't. However, could you just require that all pages in the current back history, as well as all opened pages, be cached too? If that sounds like a lot to cache, bear in mind that these are relatively small HTML source files and a developer (that may need these pages) is likely to have an enormous (50MB for me) amount of cache to play with.
(In reply to comment #12) > That doesn't make much sense to me, frankly... I use back and then view source > quite as much as I use view-source. people don't want to persist no-store content in shistory...
As the original reporter here, I thought I'd weigh in on the recent debate. I am personally only concerned with garanteeing lossless access to all data currently displayed. This is what I filed this bug for, and this is all it ever described, as far as I know. A document listed in the back/forward buttons is no different than any other history entry in my mind. Just a quicker way to navigate to them. As I surf with disk cache disabled, pinning every page in session history to memory seems awfully wasteful. If however the DOM representation of one of these pages is still in cache (rare for me; presumably common under default settings), then the source should be as well. The fundamental problem here is that we're mutilating the original source simply for a performance optimization, but then throwing away the original document. If anything, we should be doing the opposite, as having the original source rather than DOM is what really reduces network access, the original reason for a browser's cache. (And with CPU performance outpacing Internet connection speed even more today, I say it's even more important). But whenever the DOM representation (sorry, I forget the technical term for it) is available, the original document needs to be available as well, for save and view source. Always. Always. As far as the issue of too much memory being used here, that should only be the case when a user has a large number of windows/tabs open. Using a lot of memory (even exceeding the defined limits) to keep all of that cached is absolutely expected behavior, in a web browser or any other application, and assuming closing some of those docshells frees up the memory, I don't see what the problem is. This shouldn't even be considered cache... it's the working dataset!
> If however the DOM representation of one of these pages is still in cache We don't cache DOMs, ever. > having the original source rather than DOM is what really reduces network > access Absolutely. What does that have to do with this bug? We only throw away the source when we actually remove the entry from the cache. Note that we do not cache regular HTTP documents anywhere but the disk cache, last I checked, so turning off disk cache simply disables caching of HTTP documents altogether. > But whenever the DOM representation is available This can be available in many cases when the user can't even try to view source (eg XMLHttpRequest and company). > This shouldn't even be considered cache... it's the working dataset! That's the point. The original source is NOT part of the working dataset. Once it's been parsed, it's no longer needed to display that particular page, unless the page is reloaded. If the page is reloaded, we reget the source from cache. If you've disabled cache, that won't help you, of course. Note that biesi's proposed changes won't help you either, since you've just disabled cache altogether. So it won't matter whether we've expired the data there or not, since the data is simply not there.
>Note that we do not cache regular HTTP documents anywhere but the disk cache, >last I checked do we use the mem cache if we have no disk cache? (e.g. TestProtocols) (hm... this is starting to get somewhat unrelated to this bug)
> We don't cache DOMs, ever. I thought this was the cause of all of the view-source issues, with misplaced quotes and so on. > Note that we do not cache regular HTTP documents anywhere but the disk cache, Arg. So what the heck have I been caching with my 20M of memory cache for the last few years? Not only am I forced to disable disk cache because of the performance hit on my slow PC, but after having so many problems with Mozilla's cache years ago, I completely lost faith in it, and needed to ensure that during web development, I could at least resort to a quit and restart to get the current version of a web page. > The original source is NOT part of the working dataset. Then we fundamentally disagree. If my URL bar says: "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182712", then I feel the document located at "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182712" is part of my working dataset. I should have full access to it, for as long as it's open. This means being able to save it.
> then I feel the document located at > "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=182712" You say "the document", but part of the problem (and the only way to ever see this issue without disabling cache altogether) is that there may be multiple different documents located at that URI.
Um, right Boris, but that's the whole point, isn't it? When you 'view source' on an open page, what you almost certainly want (and if not you can manually re-request the document) is the document that was served to your client, at the time you visited that URI, with the parameters you passed to the server, etc. The only real way to ensure that is to grab a cache of the page at the time of receipt, and use that repeatedly. Hence all currently open pages *NEED* to be guarenteed of being in the cache - re-requesting the page isn't good enough.
12 years ago
No longer depends on: 262350
12 years ago
Depends on: 72519
Assignee: adamlock → nobody
QA Contact: adamlock → docshell
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.