On 01/25/2012 01:20 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> ons 2012-01-25 klockan 15:03 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries:
>
>> We also need to enumerate how many of these cases are specifically
>> "MUST purge" versus "MUST update". The update case is a lot more lenient
>> to sync issues than purges are.
>
> The case which matters here is that update actions done by a user should
> be immediately visible by the same user after accepted by the requested
> server.
>
> i.e. POST/PUT/DELETE etc need to invalidate any cached representation of
> the requested URL or Content-Location of response when same host.
The above matches my expectations but I do not think it matches Amos'
point of view.
> Note: This do not really work well today when there is siblings
> involved.
And it will not work if we use non-shared caches in workers (without
some additional mechanism to synchronize them, of course).
Thank you,
Alex.
Received on Wed Jan 25 2012 - 19:26:53 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jan 26 2012 - 12:00:13 MST