- From: Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:31:59 -0600
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@google.com>, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> On Jun 12, 2018, at 11:27 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > >>> That said, the syntax of Variant-Key now allows a response to match multiple keys, which at least helps in the duplication issue; see the last part of: >>> https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-variants.html#variant-key >> >> I agree that's better, but still, the response for `DPR: 2, Viewport: 300`, `DPR:1, Viewport: 600` and `DPR: 2, Viewport: 600, Save-Data: on` could be one and the same. Avoiding that cache duplication can be an important factor. > > Right, but that response would have on it something like: > > Variants: DPR;1;2, Viewport;600;1200, Save-Data;on;off > Variant-Key: 1;2, 600, on;off > > If that's not expressive enough, maybe we should be talking about a Variant-Key syntax that lets you specify alternative sets of values, e.g., > > Variants: DPR;1;2, Viewport;300;600, Save-Data;on;off > Variant-Key: 2;300;off, 1;600;off, 2;600;on This seems rather convoluted, almost aching to the complexity of the old “Key” draft. And now instead of having one secondary cache key, I might have 3 (or <n>) that I must look up? I agree that deduping in the cache is admirable, but perhaps that is an implementation detail for the caches or services? Cheers, — Leif
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2018 16:32:34 UTC