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

Re: Location, URI-header, etc.

From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 14:47:16 -0700
Message-Id: <199509012147.OAA03549@bert.amazon.com>
To: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Cc: http wg discussion <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Balint Nagy Endre writes:
 > The situation is worse. Let (clients of) caches A and B access the
 > same server, and one client of A get a response saying: cached copy
 > of 'URI X' to be invalidated (using Location). Cache A may use this
 > information to invalidate the cache as needed, but Cache B may have
 > a cached copy, and will not hear the news on 'cached copy of URI X
 > no longer valid'. And clients of cache B will receive stale version
 > of URI X.  
This may not be so bad.  Remember, caches still cannot serve up
expired documents, so at worst, they'll serve not-the-latest document,
which is possible even right now.  Secondly, the cases where this
would really be important are cases where Cache-control:private would
very likely be in effect -- pretty much anything that deals with
personalized information will either have this header, or, as the case
right now, have URL-encoded session information that limits a document
to one user.

Received on Friday, 1 September 1995 14:52:40 UTC

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