Closed
Bug 192178
Opened 23 years ago
Closed 23 years ago
an expires header with a date too far in the future is not handled correctly
Categories
(Core :: Networking: HTTP, defect, P3)
Core
Networking: HTTP
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WORKSFORME
mozilla1.4alpha
People
(Reporter: darin.moz, Assigned: skasinathan)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: topembed+)
an expires header with a date too far in the future is not handled correctly.
mozilla fails to parse this expires header correctly:
Expires: Wed, 17 Jul 2050 20:29:17 GMT
the expiration time is computed to be zero causing a fresh GET (or at least a
fresh conditional GET) each time the page is viewed. IE and 4.x handle this
case fine, and I suspect it is not uncommon for websites to use such a date to
force a cache entry to remain in the client's cache for as long as possible.
| Reporter | ||
Updated•23 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: -- → P3
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.4alpha
Updated•23 years ago
|
>>the expiration time is computed to be zero
I think the expiration time is set correctly in this testcase.
nsHttpChannel::UpdateExpirationTime() seems to set it fine. And about:cache
shows the right expiry date.
Key: http://unagi/bugs/bug_expires/nph-test.cgi
Data size: 199760 Bytes
Fetch count: 6
Last Modified: 02/25/03 10:47:32
Expires: 07/17/50 12:29:02
When I try to load the page next time, the call
rv = mCacheEntry->GetMetaDataElement("request-method", getter_Copies(buf));
fails :( and hence (I think) we never check the expiration time from cache.
| Reporter | ||
Comment 3•23 years ago
|
||
interesting
this testcase started to work fine for me from yesterday evening. We always load
the content from cache. (tried both in new profile and in profile that i
duplicated yesterday).
ok, i changed the Expires headers to several different future/past dates.
Everything works fine as expected. For future expiry dates, the image is loaded
from cache for the second and subsequent load.
Darin, when you get a chance can you try this in your system? Thanks!!!
| Reporter | ||
Comment 6•23 years ago
|
||
hmm.. WFM too [linux 2003030308 trunk]. i'm not sure what fixed this.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
Darin, your metadata changes are only on the minimo branch, right? What should
the 'request-method' metadata have been? What was the error? Anything interesting?
| Reporter | ||
Comment 8•23 years ago
|
||
gordon: actually my metadata changes haven't landed anywhere yet. haven't had a
chance to polish off the patch after your review :(
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•