- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 12:15:48 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: sjk@amazon.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Larry Masinter writes: > > Though I generally agree with what you're saying, there's a slight > > problem with this, I think. If the first GET on a URL has side > > effects necessary to the semantics intended by the server, then it has > > to avoid being served from a cache. > > How'd it get into the cache if it was never GET-ed in the first place? > Immaculate HTML? Close. Here are three ways I can think of: 1. A prior POST on the same URI as the subsequent GET can leave something in a cache. 2. Any prior response that returned a Location header with the same URI as the subsequent GET, in a 2xx response, can leave something in the cache. 3. If the cache is a public cache, it might have been another GET. The side effect might be one that you want to cause the first time a given *user* GETs a certain resource, not just the first time anyone behind a cache requested it. 1. and 2. are extremely useful features, not bugs. --Shel
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 1995 12:20:34 UTC