- From: Adrian Sutton <adrian.sutton@ephox.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:17:19 +0100
On 22 Sep 2010, at 22:10, Philipp Serafin wrote: > One disadvantage I think the version-in-URI approach has is that it's > completely transparent to the HTTP caching system. In particular, it > doesn't give caches any information about when a resource is expired. > This isn't really an issue if you really know for sure that your > resource in question only changes very rarely. However if you have a > resource that you would like to cache but where you cannot reliably > predict how fast it will change, this might become a problem. If your > resource changes too fast, this will clog up caches with dozens of old > versions which cannot be deleted because of their long-lived expiry > header. (Concrete example: Consider the avatar images of an internet > message board. Most users only set their avatar once when they register, > though a few may change them based on mood, holidays, etc.) Cached items can be cleared at any time, even if the cache headers indicate that they are still fresh. Browsers and caching proxies already do this. Regards, Adrian Sutton. ______________________ Adrian Sutton, CTO UK: +44 1 628 353 032 US: +1 (650) 292 9659 x717 Ephox http://www.ephox.com/ Ephox Blogs http://people.ephox.com/, Personal Blog http://www.symphonious.net/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100922/2b47e255/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 14:17:19 UTC