Re: Server Push -> Cache Push?

I agree with Mike here:

We've already started to build up the nomenclature / language around
"Server Push" and "Server Hint" along with use-cases for server push that
are outside of the HTTP caching model. (As an example, the current
implementation in our iOS client is to issue a NSNotificationEvent and have
the application treat it as if it issued the request.)

I think re-naming at this point will just cause more confusion than it
alleviates.


On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>wrote:

> On 30 January 2014 10:46, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
>
>> I think server-push is actually pretty well understood.  Those versant in
>> HTTP recognize that a push to the server is also known as a "GET".
>>
>
> That's a typo for "PUT", right?
>
> I agree that "server push" makes enough sense as it is, and "cache push"
> -- while describing the only real use-case we currently have -- deters any
> future uses that may evolve.  If we were going for a verb that describes
> the action in a general case, it would be something like "preempt," since
> semantically the server is preempting a request. (Or possibly
> "anticipate.")  But who really wants to call it a "preemptive response"?
>
> Another thing I like about "server push" is that it hints at a possible
> future mechanism: "server pull."  I don't have a use for such a thing right
> now, but just having the possibility looming there in the language might
> trigger some clever person some day to see in it a solution to some problem
> they're having.
>
> Sorry, I tried to rewrite that last sentence a few times but I couldn't
> make it more readable.
>
> --
>   Matthew Kerwin
>   http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
>