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

Re: Location Proposals

From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:56:00 -0700
Message-Id: <199508311856.LAA28976@bert.amazon.com>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

If there is a real possibility that caches would fail to update, or at
least invalidate (which would be almost as good), items in their
caches as a result of receiving Location headers, then I am forced to
agree with you -- certain kinds of pages just have to be completely
uncacheable.  :(.  

At this point, using Location would just be introducing a very slight
bandwidth saving -- so slight as to hardly be worth the trouble, I
think.  If certain dynamic pages must always be pre-expired (not
servable from a cache), then Location is unnecessary to prevent
"doppelgangers" -- out of date duplicates in a cache under different
URIs.  This was what I imagined as its main use in the context of
caching.  Oh well.

The case of the cache that goes down for a while, and comes up holding
now-invalidated copies of things without knowing it, seems to apply
more generally than to just this case, however.

Received on Thursday, 31 August 1995 12:02:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:14 UTC