- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 98 17:01:31 EST
- To: jg@w3.org
- Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
Jeff Mogul wrote: > One could certainly attack the intellectual basis for the > discussions (elsewhere) about invalidation. It's basically > impossible to do anything "correct", but we've added a few > stop-gap measures so that in the places where we know what is > going on, we can avoid obvious incoherencies. A custom method > is by definition not part of HTTP/1.1, so it's hard for us to > specify what it would do to a cache entry, but one could imagine > implementing a rule that "if you are forwarding a method that > you don't understand, you should also invalidate any cache > entries that might possibly be related to the Request-URI." DMK wrote: Would it make sense to add words to that effect to the spec.? Or at least advice to implementers? Jeff suggested I propose words. Here goes. Add at the end of 13.10, Invalidation After Updates or Deletes: A cache that passes through requests for methods it does not understand should invalidate any entities referred to by the Request-URI. Dave Kristol
Received on Tuesday, 24 February 1998 14:06:50 UTC