Senthil Kumaran <orsent...@gmail.com> added the comment: Thanks for the comments. Shall come with the tests.
Yes,it currently does not handle chained redirects via cache. I dont know RFC's stance on it. RFC does not say anything about 301 chained redirects and there are tricker issues of caching anything other than 301. Basically, 302 and other require the client to check and comply with the Cache-Control and Expires header. The feature request was reasonably for caching only 301 redirs and I also feel a good one to have. This is the reason for the separate http_error_301 method. The global opener seems to be a straight forward way to for this activity and not a harmful too. I can't think of request-specific object for this one. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1755841> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
