Re: NEW: #235: Cache Invalidation only happens upon successful responses

I think this is right that we might need to look at different status  
codes here. What about a 500 (internal server error)? It seems like  
the resource may have been put into a different state due to a  
partially-completed operation, and the cache, being aware of a  
potential change, ought to invalidate and re-establish the current  
state.

Let me ask the intent behind invalidation, though: is this to be done  
when the cache *knows* the state of the resource has changed, or just  
when it *might* have changed?

Jon
........
Jon Moore


On Jul 26, 2010, at 5:19 AM, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>> Good point.
>>
>> How about non-5xx status code?
>
> Well, 405 or 413 should not trigger invalidation. We need 2xx plus  
> status code that are making an assertion about the state of the  
> possibly updated representation.
>
>> On 25/07/2010, at 5:19 PM, Moore, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> By successful response, do you mean "received a response  
>>> successfully" or "received a response with a 2xx response code"?  
>>> If the former, I think I'd agree, but if the latter, there are  
>>> definitely non-2xx response codes that would still give an  
>>> indication that a cached entry wasn't valid anymore (for example,  
>>> a 404).
>>>
>>> Jon
>>> ........
>>> Jon Moore
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:22 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/235>
>>>>
>>>> Any objection to specifying that invalidation only happens upon a  
>>>> successful response (as opposed to any POST/PUT/DELETE/etc.  
>>>> response)?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
>
>        ~~Yves
>

Received on Monday, 26 July 2010 11:52:21 UTC