- From: David W. Morris <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 00:23:26 -0800 (PST)
- To: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-caching@pa.dec.com
On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Shel Kaphan wrote: > > Koen says: > ... > I agree with Dave that the method must be part of the cache key. >[...] > Many POSTs do not act as STOREs. I was going to say that .... > > No, they're more like ADD-TO-MEMORY, to use the same metaphor, but what > about PUTs? Are you saying that when PUT becomes more popular, that > caches should separately cache PUTs from GETs on the same URI??? Well the complexity here, including the spoofing issues (which I can relate to but don't completely understand yet) has in part to do with identification of what the URI identifies. The response to "PUT XXXX" surely has little correlation to the response to "GET XXXX". The PUT is likely to be something like "Put of XXXX successful" while I would hope the GET would return the entity. So do we let GET XXXX return the content of PUT XXXX if PUT XXXX is sucessful? This is getting mighty complicated. Not only for server implementors whom we should expect to be hardy folks but lowly CGI programmers as well .... [...] > this, what are the chances that everybody will get it right? > > pretty small. I wonder if _anybody_ would get _it_ right where 'it' is any part of the protocol which gets too complicated. We gotta keep testing against this standard. Dave Morris
Received on Monday, 8 January 1996 08:39:22 UTC