- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:57:19 +1000
- To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03/06/2009, at 10:51 AM, Adrien de Croy wrote: > so when the language mentions invalidation of a cache entry, it > doesn't necessarily mean deletion from the cache, purely flagging it > as requiring revalidation? From 2616, section 13.10: > In this section, the phrase "invalidate an entity" means that the > cache will either remove all instances of that entity from its > storage, or will mark these as "invalid" and in need of a mandatory > revalidation before they can be returned in response to a subsequent > request >> Good question. My experience is that this isn't implemented, and >> that caches just ignore the extensions and treat them as bare >> private and no-cache, respectively. Anybody else? >> > my reading is that a private with headers is more like a public, > since it means only those headers are private. So to treat it as > private whilst being safe (in that it won't cache any part of the > resource), won't also be optimal in terms of cache efficiency. Of course, but that's an implementation decision. A cache isn't required to be maximally efficient :) Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 22:58:00 UTC