Re: Cache control in trailers?

On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 12:22:54PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > But it's not about a marginal speed up here, it's about a server not being
> > certain whether it wants its data to be cached or not until they're complete
> 
> And that's fine!
> 
> What I'm proposing is making it possible for the server to say "Please grab
> this body first, then I'll tell you what it means afterwards."
> 
> The marginal speedup we loose because the recipient cannot act on
> the body until they see the trailers is regrettable, but we stil
> reap the overlap of production and transmission.

It's not just a loss of speed up, but the inability to reject it or
process it. You can't even know how it's encoded, if you need to
decompress it on the fly.

> The risk of getting two different Cache-Control headers is pretty much
> precisly why trailers are not being used.

Note that I purposely asked that we do *not* use the same header name,
otherwise I agree it will be a total mess. If we'd send a
"Cache-Post-Body-Status" at the end that would only be used when
preliminarily advertised in cache-control, that would be safe.

Willy

Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2021 12:32:49 UTC