- From: Mike Braca <mb@ebt.com>
- Date: Sat, 02 Dec 1995 08:49:56 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
- Cc: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@netscape.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Jeffrey Mogul wrote: > In other words, IN ALL CASES what the cache-validator means is > that if it doesn't match, send the whole object. What Range: > modifies is the behavior of GET when the cache-validator does > match. And (if you like) you can think of a missing Range: > header as implying "Range: bytes=0-0", so there is really only > one meaning. (I assume you meant "Range: bytes=0-") > Maybe it's simpler to think about this if you pronounce > "GET" as "Make sure my cache for this object is up to date". Well, yes, but an empty cache is just as valid as one full of up-to-date objects :) I hate the notion of automatically dumping the whole file onto the net. First of all, it is not intuitive to an ex-OS hacker like myself that if something in the cache goes stale, I reload the whole (file,...) instead of simply flushing the object from the cache. More pragmatically, we are working on displaying potentially huge SGML documents via HTTP, and if a 20 MB file that I am pulling subtrees out of gets changed, I don't want to trigger a send of the whole file. Perhaps Ari can tell me how they plan for this to work in the PDF case -- I may be missing something obvious here! What would make sense to me is to define something like a "305 Modified" response that passes me back the new cache-validator. Then _I_ can decide whether to fetch the whole file, or an index or whatever. What are the drawbacks to such a scheme? Mike Braca Wasabe Software, Inc. (Currently at mb@ebt.com)
Received on Sunday, 3 December 1995 21:26:29 UTC