Caching and headers

[eluser]Randy Casburn[/eluser]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at...

Many, many folks here cannot explain themselves because they don't have the depth. You clearly have a handle on this. Good explanation.

I hope that explains a usage scenario for you.

Yes.

Regarding Seppo's quote: He's quite good. There are many ways to cache content other than CI. I don't actively use the CI cache mechanism either. I probably would have given the same answer.

And I will point out again that I’m not trying to do anything extra-funky here

Sure, I'll go on the record and agree with you in that statement for sure.

Nor am I creating any new errors...

Well, this is where we part company. I agree you are not creating ERRORS, but you are COMPOUNDING difficulties by making them more apparent. Plus, this patch will likely break other applications that have been patched to work around this problem using other methods. (That is what causes the consternation about the Suffix issue). So where do we go from here?

I think you've got a compelling and supportable argument if you meet a couple of conditions:

1) You must satisfy the backward compatibility issue for those that already have patched this issue in whatever method they have patched CI. That means if they call it Suffix or Australia or Zambia that you are obligated to ensure that your solution will provide a solution that will provide a working solution for them as well in a highly backward compatible way.
-- As an example, View chaining is supported by CI. So if you offered that chaining your mime type views other than text/html (js/css/xslt/json/etc) one after another, then all the headers in the set_header() calls would be pushed into the header[] array and they would ALL be cached together. This is one solution to the Suffix type of problem, but only if the community would accept it as such.

2) You must convince the community to implement, test, and report on the whether this is actually working. I don't think anyone has actually run this code (other than you most likely).

Sounds like a good effort,

Good Luck,

Randy