Cache-Control for Stale Content
Categories
(Core :: Networking: Cache, enhancement, P3)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: matrix.org, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: dev-doc-needed, Whiteboard: [necko-backlog])
RFC 5861 defines extensions for Cache-Control of stale content. This allows the browser to serve stale content. This can improve responsiveness of websites when caches become stale as well as allow a stale version of a site to be used if it is unavailable. It defines two properties on the Cache-Control header. "stale-while-revalidate" "=" delta-seconds Allows a cache to serve stale content while refreshing itself. "stale-if-error" "=" delta-seconds Allows a cache to server stale content when the server experiences an error. While these are not used by and browsers at the moment chromium is considering adding support.[0] It would be nice to have support in firefox as well. [0] http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=348877
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Discussion of stale-while-revalidate on blink-dev is in this thread: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-dev/zchogDvIYrY/zqdQHn8fPkcJ
Updated•8 years ago
|
Updated•8 years ago
|
Comment 2•7 years ago
|
||
Bulk change to priority: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1399258
Comment 3•7 years ago
|
||
Bulk change to priority: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1399258
Comment 5•5 years ago
|
||
Is this implemented?
The developer of Boostaler https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boostaler/ commented upon the age of this bug, and draws attention to https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?q=stale. From amongst those results, I get (for example):
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•5 years ago
|
||
I'm not implementing this. I am not aware of any work on it.
One interesting update is that chromium has now implemented stale-while-revalidate https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=348877
Comment 7•5 years ago
|
||
As we just did, except the stale-if-error handling which we don't intend to implement.
I can't seem to be able to find the discussion about "stale-if-error".
Do you know where it is? At least, where may I find it?
Comment 9•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to brunoais from comment #8)
I can't seem to be able to find the discussion about "stale-if-error".
Do you know where it is? At least, where may I find it?
Discussed only during the necko internal meeting, no public record exists.
Comment 11•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to brunoais from comment #10)
What is(are) the reason(s) for such decision?
First, Chrome doesn't implement it either. Other reason is that that particular stale-if-error directive is not that beneficial as s-w-r while more complicated to implement, so the priority to implement it very low. We don't have data on actual use of that directive, tho. We could open a new bug just for s-i-e implementation, but it would be given a very low priority (P5), even for just discussing it.
Comment 12•5 years ago
|
||
Noted.
I think making a bug for discussion is not out of question... Who knows? maybe someone may implement for you.
If someone implements it, would you keep it?
Comment 13•5 years ago
|
||
(In reply to brunoais from comment #12)
Noted.
I think making a bug for discussion is not out of question... Who knows? maybe someone may implement for you.
If someone implements it, would you keep it?
If it gets a production quality, meaning to have a test and pass reviews, then probably yes.
Feel free to file the bug under Core:Networking:HTTP.
Description
•