- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:06:27 -0800
- To: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>, Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Perhaps Content-MD5 would help solve a number of these issues in a much cleaner way. It doesn't do away with ETags I suspect, but can help with PUT equivalence. Lisa On Dec 20, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote: > > I don't see how that would help. For one, I suspect may clients > will ask for this all the time, so then why not do it for all clients > all the time? I'm not opposed to giving you the strong ETag, I just > don't know how to do it. > > One possibility is not to return an ETag at all on PUT, nor for GET > requests in the first second, and only return the strong ETag once we > know what it is. This eliminates the weak ETag altogether. > > The advantage here is that while the client would have to poll a few > times to get the ETag, it would now when it got the "final" ETag that > Jim is advocating for, once it got any ETag at all. However, for the > first second, the file would not be cacheable, which is more or less > correct anyway. > > -wsv > > > On Dec 20, 2005, at 12:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> But it seems that there's a simple way to fix this (for Apache): >> should a client require a strong ETag upon PUT, it could make that >> explicit in the request (new header?), so that the server can just >> special-case this, and do what's needed to ensure the ETag is stable. >> Wilfredo? > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 22:06:36 UTC