- From: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 17:26:14 +0100 (MET)
- To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it (Luigi Rizzo)
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com (http WG caching subwg)
Luigi Rizzo writes: > ... > It is also a problem for caches, which must either give up or > develop complex and memory consuming techniques essentially to > try to reconstruct the behaviour of the server from its responses. > This is both for GET (where no side effects can be assumed, but > requests with different parameters possibly yield different results), > and POST methods. The request URI is a good cache key. The problem is: How the script will handle HEAD and GET/I-M-S ? If the script can handle both, then the response can be cached in a normal way. If we specify Cache-control: no-cache mandatory for scripts not supporting both HEAD and GET/I-M-S, the problem is likely solved. (For 1.1 servers only, of course.) Andrew. (Endre Balint Nagy) <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
Received on Friday, 5 January 1996 17:12:53 UTC