<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Brian Sullivan wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midc3c01f30601111639o274ab829l4406d49c2481449@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 1/11/06, Jens Vagelpohl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jens@dataflake.org"><jens@dataflake.org></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 11 Jan 2006, at 21:46, Brian Sullivan wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am using CookieCrumbler as an authentication method on a Zope site.
I am looking at the feasibility of putting multi CookieCrumbler
objects (all with the same settings -- except for the cache setting)
on a site in order to allow some parts of the site to be cached in an
upstream proxy and forbidding others.
Is this a reasonable thing to do? Will it achieve the result I am
looking for?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I will not do what you expect to do. The first cookie crumbler to do
authentication sets the cookie and even if other cookie crumblers get
involved they will not just overwrite that cookie because the
lifetime setting on their cookie is different.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
In some testing I found that the headers (at least the upstream cache
setting which is what I was interested in) does seem to be different
depending on the first CookieCrumbler to handle the content (I set one
in a subdirectory to cache setting 'public' and the main system level
one to 'private')- which would seem to imply that higher placed ones
recognize the cache header setting and avoid changing it? This seemed
to do what I want.
If this isn't a strategy for doing what I want to do can anybody thing of one?
I have a site that is authenticated using CookieCrumbler. I have a
whole bunch of static files/objects, some fairly large isolated in a
subfolder on the site. I want the static objects to be cached by
upstream proxies, but all other parts of the site not cacheable.
___</pre>
</blockquote>
Brian,<br>
<br>
Can you explain how you are using this? Does cookie crumbler's
cache-control apply to *all* authenticated responses? If so, I didnt
realize it was so sweeping (I admit i had assumed it applied to the
authentication cookie).<br>
<br>
Have you, for example, considerered branching to different folders (one
with all object caches set to no-cache) based on a user role? <br>
<br>
Can you give more detail?<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
Good luck!<br>
David<br>
<br>
Its an interesting idea, to cascade cookie crumblers - you might be
able to fake the login_screen <br>
</body>
</html>