- From: Shel Kaphan <sjk@amazon.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 14:47:16 -0700
- To: Balint Nagy Endre <bne@bne.ind.eunet.hu>
- Cc: http wg discussion <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Balint Nagy Endre writes: ... > The situation is worse. Let (clients of) caches A and B access the > same server, and one client of A get a response saying: cached copy > of 'URI X' to be invalidated (using Location). Cache A may use this > information to invalidate the cache as needed, but Cache B may have > a cached copy, and will not hear the news on 'cached copy of URI X > no longer valid'. And clients of cache B will receive stale version > of URI X. ... This may not be so bad. Remember, caches still cannot serve up expired documents, so at worst, they'll serve not-the-latest document, which is possible even right now. Secondly, the cases where this would really be important are cases where Cache-control:private would very likely be in effect -- pretty much anything that deals with personalized information will either have this header, or, as the case right now, have URL-encoded session information that limits a document to one user. --Shel
Received on Friday, 1 September 1995 14:52:40 UTC