W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt

From: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 21:46:00 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimkeNTLJzE=59qCj6Ug3dF2TPDuOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Balachander Krishnamurthy <bala@research.att.com>, cew@cs.wpi.edu
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
[...]
> I keep the associations in memory (hashed in some cases to preserve space), and that seems to work well.

Does that mean that your implementation, upon seeing a response for
resource A that contains a Link header that invalidates resource B,
will persistently retain the knowledge that changes to A should
invalidate B?

I'd been assuming that the invalidation of B would be a one-time
event: the receiving client or intermediary would invalidate B in its
cache and forget about the message thereafter.  That's a scalable
model (in practice, implementations limit the max total header size
they'll allow per message, and that puts an upper bound on the number
of invalidations that a single response message can trigger).
Retaining the associations persistently is a much harder model to
scale.

-Brian
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 04:46:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:41 GMT