You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've done some testing with few major browsers and it seems that they send request headers disabling caching (e.g. "cache-control=no-cache") even if they shouldn't. I'm curious though how is this nice feature applicable these days? We do not design our application to be served for Postman or Fiddler, but for real-world users with real-world browsers :-)
Thank you for the answer!
Document Details
⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.
ID: 10cda0f9-e2c7-015d-4fbf-d361f6c67d9f
Version Independent ID: 13154131-c2b6-2c72-fb0e-1d83bca4e21a
Hello @petrkoutnycz ... ASP.NET Core just follows the HTTP caching specification. There's some info on this in the Overview topic of this node. Whatever rules browsers follow for making requests for content WRT caching, there are many requests that aren't made by browsers (e.g., apps/web API/services) following different rules and often without avoiding cached responses.
This is a general question for discussion best left to the community. For general discussion, we recommend public support forums, such as ...
WRT having more control over caching (i.e., ignoring cache control headers and thus not following the HTTP spec), such a feature is called "output caching" and is in design. See 👉 dotnet/aspnetcore#27387.
Hi,
I've done some testing with few major browsers and it seems that they send request headers disabling caching (e.g. "cache-control=no-cache") even if they shouldn't. I'm curious though how is this nice feature applicable these days? We do not design our application to be served for Postman or Fiddler, but for real-world users with real-world browsers :-)
Thank you for the answer!
Document Details
⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: