W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1996

Re: POST vs. separate methods

From: Ben Laurie <ben@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 20:40:18 +0000 (GMT)
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: gjw@wnetc.com, ejw@kleber.ics.uci.edu, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <9610292040.aa17741@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Larry Masinter wrote:
> I was thinking more of a return header from ANY request that
> identified a set of other URLs whose cache entries should be marked
> stale. So, if you POST a new entry to
>        http://host.dom/container
> you might get back a return header that it updated:
> 	http://host.dom/container/3q96/by-date
> 	http://host.dom/container/3q96/by-author
> or (even)
> 	http://host.dom/container/3q96/*
> This puts the computational burden on the update method rather than
> retrieval, and is predicated on an assumption that reads happen far
> more frequently than writes.

I like this idea - but it isn't very practical, I fear. If the request is
handled by a CGI, then how does the server know what's been updated? For highly
automated sites, the list of URLs could be huge. In fact, a set of URLs which
access a database is pretty much a one-way function as far as calculating
validity goes (though I did have this crazy idea about inverse SQL once...).



Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 1996 16:41:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:09 UTC