I assumed sibling relation here. In a parent relation there usually
is no point in doing operations like this.
It more or less is OK to assume ProxyB has fetched the object one way
or another (however, the request may have been aborted so you cannot
know for sure), but it is not OK to assume it has cached it, or that
the cached copy is fresh.
Regards
Henrik
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 12:43, francisv@dagupan.com wrote:
> How about if they were sibling and not parent->sibling? Wouldn't it
> be logical to assume that ProxyB requested the object because it
> wanted to fetch it and it should have gotten it from either DIRECT
> or other sibling/parent relationships?
Received on Tue Apr 02 2002 - 03:46:05 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:07:18 MST