http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

jidanni
Hello, say, when we are running our link checker programs and see
HEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
HEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK
HEAD http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
HEAD http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK
HEAD http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
HEAD http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
HEAD http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
HEAD http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
does that mean we should hardwire those extra long paths into our web
pages instead of the less worrisome versions we are using now?

I mean when I see a 301, I update my webpages, but momma said stay out
of alleys...

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Remember the dot
Maybe we could make /wiki/ show the front page and not just redirect? Then
we would have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ --> 200 OK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK

http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/ --> 200 OK
http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 -->
200 OK

http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/ --> 200 OK
http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK

There's something to be said for making the URLs shorter and prettier,
although I also understand the desire to minimize duplication. Thoughts?

--
Remember the dot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Remember_the_dot
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

jidanni
All I know is I get burnt every time e.g., the translation of a built
in page name changes, so linking to
Rtd> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ --> 200 OK
gives little more confidence than linking to
Rtd> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK

Let's see how the real professionals do it
$ HEAD -PdS www.google.com
HEAD http://www.google.com --> 302 Found
HEAD http://www.google.com.tw/ --> 200 OK
Oops. Well how about
$ HEAD -PSd www.whitehouse.gov
HEAD http://www.whitehouse.gov --> 200 OK

See. The pros don't tangle one up with kiddie links.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Aryeh Gregor
In reply to this post by Remember the dot
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Remember the dot
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Maybe we could make /wiki/ show the front page and not just redirect?

Then we have duplicate URLs for the same content.  I don't see any
problem with keeping the 301.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:02 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> All I know is I get burnt every time e.g., the translation of a built
> in page name changes, so linking to
> Rtd> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ --> 200 OK
> gives little more confidence than linking to
> Rtd> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK

If the main page name changes, you can expect a redirect to be put in
place from the old name.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by jidanni
2009/2/24  <[hidden email]>:

> Hello, say, when we are running our link checker programs and see
> HEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
> HEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK
> HEAD http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
> HEAD http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK
> HEAD http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
> HEAD http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
> HEAD http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
> HEAD http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
> HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
> HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
> does that mean we should hardwire those extra long paths into our web
> pages instead of the less worrisome versions we are using now?
>
> I mean when I see a 301, I update my webpages, but momma said stay out
> of alleys...

Unfortunately I don't think HTTP has a status code for "move
permanently but this redirect will always be here". 301 is probably
the best option out of what there is.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Oldak
2009/2/24 Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]>:

> 2009/2/24  <[hidden email]>:
>> Hello, say, when we are running our link checker programs and see
>> HEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
>> HEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK
>> HEAD http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
>> HEAD http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page --> 200 OK
>> HEAD http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
>> HEAD http://radioscanningtw.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
>> HEAD http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
>> HEAD http://taizhongbus.jidanni.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
>> HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
>> HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK
>> does that mean we should hardwire those extra long paths into our web
>> pages instead of the less worrisome versions we are using now?
>>
>> I mean when I see a 301, I update my webpages, but momma said stay out
>> of alleys...
>
> Unfortunately I don't think HTTP has a status code for "move
> permanently but this redirect will always be here". 301 is probably
> the best option out of what there is.

Might not 302 be better in that it indicates the redirect will always
be there, though the target might move in the future? Where 301
suggests that the client "ought to automatically re-link references",
302 suggests "client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future
request".

Although 302 indicates temporary move and 301 indicates permanent
move, since the Main_page could be renamed, 302 might be more fitting
anyway...

--
Oldak Quill ([hidden email])

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Aryeh Gregor
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Might not 302 be better in that it indicates the redirect will always
> be there, though the target might move in the future? Where 301
> suggests that the client "ought to automatically re-link references",
> 302 suggests "client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future
> request".
>
> Although 302 indicates temporary move and 301 indicates permanent
> move, since the Main_page could be renamed, 302 might be more fitting
> anyway...

The Main Page *could* be renamed.  Wikipedia *could* also move to
www.thebestencyclopediaever.net.  301 isn't an iron-clad guarantee,
it's a hint.  302 should be used for things that will definitely or at
least plausibly change in the future, not things that hypothetically
maybe could change if people really felt like it for some reason,
because the latter describes everything on the Internet.

In particular, if the target of a 301 redirect moves, that's perfectly
fine as long as the previous target redirects to the new target.
Which will happen, so what's the problem?

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Phil Boswell
In reply to this post by Aryeh Gregor
Aryeh Gregor wrote
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Remember the dot
<rememberthedot@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we could make /wiki/ show the front page and not just redirect?

Then we have duplicate URLs for the same content.  I don't see any
problem with keeping the 301.
Isn't this what the new "rel=canonical" facility is designed to cover?

I seem to recall we're using that for REDIRECT pages, why not for this kind of situation?
--
Phil
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Aryeh Gregor
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Phil Boswell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Isn't this what the new "rel=canonical" facility is designed to cover?
>
> I seem to recall we're using that for REDIRECT pages, why not for this kind
> of situation?

Matt Cutts of Google has stressed that rel="canonical" should only be
used where redirects aren't feasible:

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/canonical-link-element-presentation.html
Slide 8:
"* Far better to avoid dupes and normalize urls in the first place
* If you're a power user, exhaust alternatives first"

Besides, duplicate URLs are just kind of icky.  It seems nicer on the
basis of general web principles to have a single URL where possible,
unless there are specific good reasons not to.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Aryeh Gregor
In reply to this post by Phil Boswell
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Phil Boswell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I seem to recall we're using that for REDIRECT pages, why not for this kind
> of situation?

. . . and to clarify, since I left this out: we *need* redirects to
have different URLs, because they actually display slightly different
content (the little "redirected from" thing).  This reason is not
relevant to the proposal at hand.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Angela-5
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Aryeh Gregor
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Phil Boswell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I seem to recall we're using that for REDIRECT pages, why not for this kind
>> of situation?
>
> . . . and to clarify, since I left this out: we *need* redirects to
> have different URLs, because they actually display slightly different
> content (the little "redirected from" thing).  This reason is not
> relevant to the proposal at hand.

No, it's possible to add "redirected from" but still change the URL.
Wikia did this before the canonical tag came in.

The code is here:
<https://svn.wikia-code.com/wikia/trunk/extensions/wikia/HardRedirectsWithJSText/HardRedirectsWithJSText.php>

Angela

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Ilmari Karonen
In reply to this post by Aryeh Gregor
Aryeh Gregor wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Might not 302 be better in that it indicates the redirect will always
>> be there, though the target might move in the future? Where 301
>> suggests that the client "ought to automatically re-link references",
>> 302 suggests "client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future
>> request".
>>
>> Although 302 indicates temporary move and 301 indicates permanent
>> move, since the Main_page could be renamed, 302 might be more fitting
>> anyway...
>
> The Main Page *could* be renamed.  Wikipedia *could* also move to
> www.thebestencyclopediaever.net.  301 isn't an iron-clad guarantee,
> it's a hint.  302 should be used for things that will definitely or at
> least plausibly change in the future, not things that hypothetically
> maybe could change if people really felt like it for some reason,
> because the latter describes everything on the Internet.

The actual semantic difference between 301 and 302, as Oldak notes, is
that clients that can choose which URL to use in the future should
prefer the redirect target for 301, whereas they should keep using the
original URL for 302.

(There's also some differences with cacheability by default, but
explicit expiry and cache control headers override those.)

Since <http://en.wikipedia.org/> is arguably a better URL for linking to
the English Wikipedia main page than
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>, I'd see no reason not to make
the redirect a 302.  We'd just be telling visitors that "our main page
is over there, but feel free to keep using this shorter URL".

--
Ilmari Karonen

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Tei-2
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Ilmari Karonen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Might not 302 be better in that it indicates the redirect will always
>>> be there, though the target might move in the future? Where 301
>>> suggests that the client "ought to automatically re-link references",
>>> 302 suggests "client SHOULD continue to use the Request-URI for future
>>> request".
>>>
>>> Although 302 indicates temporary move and 301 indicates permanent
>>> move, since the Main_page could be renamed, 302 might be more fitting
>>> anyway...
>>
>> The Main Page *could* be renamed.  Wikipedia *could* also move to
>> www.thebestencyclopediaever.net.  301 isn't an iron-clad guarantee,
>> it's a hint.  302 should be used for things that will definitely or at
>> least plausibly change in the future, not things that hypothetically
>> maybe could change if people really felt like it for some reason,
>> because the latter describes everything on the Internet.
>
> The actual semantic difference between 301 and 302, as Oldak notes, is
> that clients that can choose which URL to use in the future should
> prefer the redirect target for 301, whereas they should keep using the
> original URL for 302.
>
> (There's also some differences with cacheability by default, but
> explicit expiry and cache control headers override those.)
>
> Since <http://en.wikipedia.org/> is arguably a better URL for linking to
> the English Wikipedia main page than
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>, I'd see no reason not to make
> the redirect a 302.  We'd just be telling visitors that "our main page
> is over there, but feel free to keep using this shorter URL".
>

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page just looks ugly

And If you visit this:
en.wikipedia.org./Main_Page

It works (with a HTML redirection), but you are amused with a  page
designed to scare you.

It seems work with other words:
http://en.wikipedia.org./Cool

--
--
ℱin del ℳensaje.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Aryeh Gregor
In reply to this post by Angela-5
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Angela <[hidden email]> wrote:
> No, it's possible to add "redirected from" but still change the URL.
> Wikia did this before the canonical tag came in.
>
> The code is here:
> <https://svn.wikia-code.com/wikia/trunk/extensions/wikia/HardRedirectsWithJSText/HardRedirectsWithJSText.php>

That's not a method I'd seen before.  It's quite clever, and it looks
like it actually doesn't need JavaScript at all.  The basic idea is to
set a cookie when sending the 301, and then check for the cookie on
the actual page display (and unset it immediately).  This would only
fail for users with cookies disabled, and those users couldn't log in
anyway (perhaps they could edit anonymously, I guess).  The cookie
could contain both the redirect and the target page names, so it
wouldn't add bogus redirect messages if the user loads multiple pages
at once.

Of course, the Wikia implementation requires JavaScript to be enabled.
 (Wikia appears to view this as a much smaller cost than MediaWiki
developers do.)  I don't think that's actually necessary at all,
though.  Just read the cookie in PHP.  It would take considerably more
effort to implement this properly in core than the current "canonical"
workaround, but it might be worth doing at some point, unless there's
a problem I'm missing.

. . . anyway, my point was just that the situation in question is
different from redirects, which it is, regardless of the above
(although the info you give is interesting).

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Ilmari Karonen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The actual semantic difference between 301 and 302, as Oldak notes, is
> that clients that can choose which URL to use in the future should
> prefer the redirect target for 301, whereas they should keep using the
> original URL for 302.
>
> (There's also some differences with cacheability by default, but
> explicit expiry and cache control headers override those.)

Reviewing the definitions, I guess you're right.  A 302 with
appropriate caching headers seems slightly more appropriate.  I don't
think it's a big deal, though.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Tei <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And If you visit this:
> en.wikipedia.org./Main_Page
>
> It works (with a HTML redirection), but you are amused with a  page
> designed to scare you.
>
> It seems work with other words:
> http://en.wikipedia.org./Cool

It's designed to scare you because that type of URL will only work in
the majority of cases, not all cases.  Try these URLs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w
http://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt

Of course, these still work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/W
http://en.wikipedia.org/Robots.txt

And on enwiki, pages starting with lowercase letters happen to be
prohibited at the moment.  But there'd be no way to access [[wikt:w]]
or [[wikt:wiki]] with this kind of URL, for instance, and trying to
access [[w:w]] could cause confusion (you have to make sure to
uppercase the first letter of the URL).  So we use scary/annoying
messages to discourage people from using this type of URL with the
intent that it actually work in all cases.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Emil Podlaszewski
2009/2/27 Aryeh Gregor <[hidden email]>:
[...]
> Of course, the Wikia implementation requires JavaScript to be enabled.
>  (Wikia appears to view this as a much smaller cost than MediaWiki
> developers do.)  I don't think that's actually necessary at all,
> though.  Just read the cookie in PHP.  It would take considerably more
> effort to implement this properly in core than the current "canonical"
> workaround, but it might be worth doing at some point, unless there's
> a problem I'm missing.
[...]

Not all requests hit the backend if you have squid or varnish in front
of your apaches.

Emil

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Aryeh Gregor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Emil Podlaszewski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Not all requests hit the backend if you have squid or varnish in front
> of your apaches.

They do if you just set a cookie and the response has Vary: Cookie.
:)  I didn't think about the interaction with Squid, but I don't think
it would be disastrous.  It would have to cache an extra response: the
redirect itself (with the cookie-setting header), and then the target
page (with the cookie-unsetting header).  Both of these would only be
cache hits if the requester's cookies matched the original requester's
cookies, so nothing incorrect should be served.

It does add an extra HTTP request, and therefore an extra roundtrip,
so it would slow things down a bit regardless of caching, compared to
the current method.  But that's true for all HTTP redirects.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

jidanni
In reply to this post by Tei-2
> Since <http://en.wikipedia.org/> is arguably a better URL for linking to
> the English Wikipedia main page than
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>, I'd see no reason not to make
> the redirect a 302.  We'd just be telling visitors that "our main page
> is over there, but feel free to keep using this shorter URL".

Right on! (1960's language)

T> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page just looks ugly

And don't forget those of us who prefer to configure our sites with
genuine index.php URLs.

$ HEAD -dSP http://transgender-taiwan.org/
HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 --> 200 OK

What this says is that all webmasters who link to the former tidy URL,
should instead change that to the latter blathersome URL. Fat chance
they would say, especially if the were the Dmoz indexers, etc. "Come
back when your site is fixed".

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Nikola Smolenski
Дана Friday 27 February 2009 22:57:00 [hidden email] написа:

> > Since <http://en.wikipedia.org/> is arguably a better URL for linking to
> > the English Wikipedia main page than
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>, I'd see no reason not to make
> > the redirect a 302.  We'd just be telling visitors that "our main page
> > is over there, but feel free to keep using this shorter URL".
>
> And don't forget those of us who prefer to configure our sites with
> genuine index.php URLs.
>
> $ HEAD -dSP http://transgender-taiwan.org/
> HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently
> HEAD http://transgender-taiwan.org/index.php?title=%E9%A6%96%E9%A0%81 -->
> 200 OK
>
> What this says is that all webmasters who link to the former tidy URL,
> should instead change that to the latter blathersome URL. Fat chance
> they would say, especially if the were the Dmoz indexers, etc. "Come
> back when your site is fixed".

What seems to be the best, but the hardest thing to do is to have the main
page served at http://en.wikipedia.org/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page be a 301 redirect to
http://en.wikipedia.org/ :)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/ --> 301 Moved Permanently

Daniel Friesen
In reply to this post by Aryeh Gregor
It also completely screws up the redirected from line if you CTRL+Click
on a number of redirects. ie: When trying to mass delete redirects
tagged for deletion.

~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://nadir-seen-fire.com]
-Nadir-Point & Wiki-Tools (http://nadir-point.com) (http://wiki-tools.com)
-MonkeyScript (http://monkeyscript.org)
-Animepedia (http://anime.wikia.com)
-Narutopedia (http://naruto.wikia.com)
-Soul Eater Wiki (http://souleater.wikia.com)



Aryeh Gregor wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Emil Podlaszewski <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Not all requests hit the backend if you have squid or varnish in front
>> of your apaches.
>>    
>
> They do if you just set a cookie and the response has Vary: Cookie.
> :)  I didn't think about the interaction with Squid, but I don't think
> it would be disastrous.  It would have to cache an extra response: the
> redirect itself (with the cookie-setting header), and then the target
> page (with the cookie-unsetting header).  Both of these would only be
> cache hits if the requester's cookies matched the original requester's
> cookies, so nothing incorrect should be served.
>
> It does add an extra HTTP request, and therefore an extra roundtrip,
> so it would slow things down a bit regardless of caching, compared to
> the current method.  But that's true for all HTTP redirects.
>  


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l