Re: NEW ISSUE: Methods and Caching

> On fre, 2008-11-14 at 19:11 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> RFC2616 does not clearly define what the relationship of the request
>> method is to caching. In particular, does the method form part of the
>> cache key?
> As already discussed extensively: no.
>> [...]
> Indeed.
> My proposal is to make the URI-only GET/HEAD cache model more explicit,
> so future protocol additions hopefully do not fall into the same trap of
> inventing new GET-type methods like WebDAV did..

I think everyone agrees nowadays that side-effect free reading should be
done with GET. (If WebDAV comes up as a a bad example all the time in
these discussions, it is because it almost got things right. Other
protocols which nearly got everything-* wrong, will not be remembered).

I like Henriks approach because it keeps things easy to understand, which
is a prerequisite to easy to implement. And caches deployed on the net
with inconsistent behaviour in edge cases have always been a pain.


Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 08:36:04 UTC