Re: I-D Action: draft-nottingham-linked-cache-inv-00.txt

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> I keep the associations in memory (hashed in some cases to preserve space), and that seems to work well.

Does that mean that your implementation, upon seeing a response for
resource A that contains a Link header that invalidates resource B,
will persistently retain the knowledge that changes to A should
invalidate B?

I'd been assuming that the invalidation of B would be a one-time
event: the receiving client or intermediary would invalidate B in its
cache and forget about the message thereafter.  That's a scalable
model (in practice, implementations limit the max total header size
they'll allow per message, and that puts an upper bound on the number
of invalidations that a single response message can trigger).
Retaining the associations persistently is a much harder model to


Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 04:46:47 UTC