W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: Issues-list item "CACHING-CGI"

From: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:56:28 +0100
To: luotonen@netscape.com
Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <8525647B.001AC52E.00@mta2.lotus.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3072

It's probably true that most CGI output is not intended to be cached, but
I don't see any a priori reason why CGI output should never be cached.
Off-hand, I don't see any reason why the current time can't be sent as the
last modified time for the resource. As a practical example, I use CGI to
produce indexes to the archives for a mailing list. Generally, digests are
generated once a day, and the archive are updated with each digest. Now,
if digests were always generated once a day, then it seems natural enough
to generate cacheable output with a freshness lifetime of 24 hours. In
fact, I've had people read the list exclusively through the web, and not
by mail, and so it's quite possible that the same person would visit the
site several times during the day.

gjw@wnetc.com    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come
up with a better one.
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 1997 04:37:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC