- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 11:56:00 -0700
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
If there is a real possibility that caches would fail to update, or at least invalidate (which would be almost as good), items in their caches as a result of receiving Location headers, then I am forced to agree with you -- certain kinds of pages just have to be completely uncacheable. :(. At this point, using Location would just be introducing a very slight bandwidth saving -- so slight as to hardly be worth the trouble, I think. If certain dynamic pages must always be pre-expired (not servable from a cache), then Location is unnecessary to prevent "doppelgangers" -- out of date duplicates in a cache under different URIs. This was what I imagined as its main use in the context of caching. Oh well. The case of the cache that goes down for a while, and comes up holding now-invalidated copies of things without knowing it, seems to apply more generally than to just this case, however. --Shel
Received on Thursday, 31 August 1995 12:02:10 UTC