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

On 01/06/2011, at 2:46 PM, Brian Pane wrote:

> 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?

Yes, until another response is received with differing information.

> 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
> scale.

Remember that the association is bounded by the freshness lifetime of the response it was carried in; that keeps things reasonable.


Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 04:48:13 UTC