I noticed that mich SWFs are not getting cached. This was mentioned and closed in bugs 17895 and 18972. However, the last resolution was that the file was big an it was a bug on the close source Apple Framework. However, I don't really think this is the entire problem. I used a program called "Charles" to monitor the http traffic. If you go to the Flash About page that has a small SWF on it (http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/about/), I still don't see the "If-Modified-Since" header getting sent. Surely, this SWF is not that big. Also, if this is considered a Mac Framework bug, this works find in Firefox. I wonder how they do it. Also, can you please give some more information on tracking the "Mac Framework Bug". Thanks.
WebKit does not handle HTTP-level caching itself. It relies on the CFNetwork system framework, by way of the Foundation NSURL layer, to cache resources and to add the correct cache validation headers. Firefox does not make use of Foundation or CFNetwork, but instead completely rolls its own HTTP stack so is not affected by any issues in those underlying frameworks. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18972 ***
I do not think that this is a duplicate. As you have mentioned, this file is very small. Also, it is accessed via a 301 redirect, which complicates things. However, as mentioned by Mark, these bugs are not in WebKit, and need to be filed via <http://bugreport.apple.com> for Apple engineers working on CFNetwork to investigate. Please let us know if you would be willing to file this bug! > Also, can you please give some more information on tracking the "Mac Framework Bug". You can write to <devbugs@apple.com> to request information about a bug if you know its rdar:// number. The amount of information Apple will be able to provide is subject to Apple internal policies, of course.
> I do not think that this is a duplicate. As you have mentioned, this file is > very small. Also, it is accessed via a 301 redirect, which complicates things. For the record, I was talking about <http://www.adobe.com/swf/software/flash/about/flashAbout_info_small.swf>.
I guess it depends on which SWF the original reporter was referring to. There is a slightly larger SWF on that page which looks as though it would definitely be impacted by bug 18972.