W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Comments on draft-v10-03a.

From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:15:48 -0700
Message-Id: <199508301915.MAA20996@bert.amazon.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: sjk@amazon.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Larry Masinter writes:
 > > Though I generally agree with what you're saying, there's a slight
 > > problem with this, I think.  If the first GET on a URL has side
 > > effects necessary to the semantics intended by the server, then it has
 > > to avoid being served from a cache.
 > 
 > How'd it get into the cache if it was never GET-ed in the first place?
 > Immaculate HTML?

Close.

Here are three ways I can think of:

1. A prior POST on the same URI as the subsequent GET can leave
something in a cache.

2. Any prior response that returned a Location header with the same URI
as the subsequent GET, in a 2xx response, can leave something in the
cache.

3. If the cache is a public cache, it might have been
another GET.  The side effect might be one that you want to cause the
first time a given *user* GETs a certain resource, not just the first time
anyone behind a cache requested it.

1. and 2. are extremely useful features, not bugs.

--Shel
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 1995 12:20:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:26 EDT