- From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 16:07:40 -0800 (PST)
- To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Cc: http-caching@pa.dec.com, sjk@digital.com
On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, Shel Kaphan wrote: [...] > > - For POSTs where the response does not contain Cache-control:no-side-effects, > the response cannot be used to answer any POSTs. As I tried to say a few minutes ago in another message, it seems to me that a third POST case exists ... the POST result is cachable BUT the server must see the request and perhaps pick one of N responses. [...] > - What about the HTTP method? I do not believe that the HTTP method > should be part of the cache key. In fact, I think it can't be. I don't think I agree. I'm inclined to believe it must be part of the key. There is nothing in current practice that I'm aware of which wouldn't allow GET of a URI to return a price list and POST of the same URI to confirm the order. Dave Morris
Received on Sunday, 7 January 1996 00:22:32 UTC