Re: Transparency vs. Performance: survey of opinion

At 09:36 PM 2/25/96 -0800, Shel Kaphan wrote:
>3. BUT: Clients SHOULD signal a server when the client may be ignoring
>the server's directives as to caching. Suggestions as to how this can
>be done are to introduce a new header (Cache-warning: <various
>options> (suggested by Koen)) or to use Jeff's Cache-control:
>stale-max=NNN (Roy's suggestion, though he wants to call it
>max-stale....whatever).  This will allow servers to take evasive
>action if clients inform them of their intent to live dangerously.

How does the UA or the User know in advance that it's going to 'live
dangerously'?  If at day X+1, when my laptop is not connected to the
network, I decide I want to go back and see the description of that book I
ordered, right before I hit the 'submit order', where's the server
notification?  What if I just go look directly in my Cache directry and pull
up tmp4df56.htm file in notepad: where's the server notification?

The whole debate about 'the server owns the data' reminds me of the PC game
piracy threads I read.  Software manufacturers go through all these
contortions to retain control over their data, but if a user really wants to
override those controls he can - the data's on his hard drive and he can do
as he pleases.

>4. Clients SHOULD inform the user, and provide an option to
>reconfigure, if a server makes cache control requests that the client
>has been configured to ignore.

I don't have a problem with this.  It's not a protocol issue (along with
most of this discussion really), per se, but implementation hints are IMHO
perfectly acceptable editors notes.

Dan DuBois, Software Animal 
    Download a totally free copy of the Spyglass Web Server today!

Received on Monday, 26 February 1996 09:09:57 UTC