- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 16:53:57 -0800
- To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com
Paul Leach writes: > Shel said: > ] The GET can always be implemented as a POST -- you just get less > ] effective service from any caches in the chain. But the POST couldn't > ] always be implemented as a GET (assuming a cachable response), since > ] the POST might have side effects that might be omitted if a GET were > ] handled entirely by a proxy cache. > > I always asumed that the existence of a "?" in the request-URI > prevented proxies from caching the result-entity, so that this couldn't happen? > > Is this not a correct understanding of the practice? > > Paul > > I don't know - I think you're right that that's a common heuristic, but if so, that's all it is. What happens if you put a valid Expires header in the response, for instance? I don't know. Right now it's a jungle of heuristics out there.
Received on Saturday, 6 January 1996 01:12:41 UTC