couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: COUCHDB-190
Date Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:01:33 GMT
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Antony Blakey <antony.blakey@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the referenced m/l discussion about the issue of GET vs. POST, the point
> was made that if there are problems with GET for UUIDs, then there are going
> to be similar problems for GETs of documents, views without params,
> /_config, /_stats etc, and attachments.
>

True, but in those cases at least the failure mode manifests itself in
ways other than rejecting later updates. Also, in those cases there
are conditions when it's OK to cache. In the _uuids case, one should
never ever cache.

> I would have thought that GET of UUIDs would therefore be OK as long as it
> was at least as good cache-header-wise as the other GET operations in
> CouchDB.
>

Good point, I guess I'm thinking it doesn't hurt to be as uncacheable
as possible in this case. But you raise the point that bad clients are
going to get strange errors regardless of what we do on this question,
so being helpful to nonconforming clients is of limited value.

@ZDZolton: testing for

Cache-Control: must-revalidate

is important. This snippet from the RFC:

(I.e., the cache MUST do an end-to-end revalidation every time, if,
based solely on the origin server's Expires or max-age value, the
cached response is stale.)

suggests we should also test for either Expires or max-age, to be on
the safe side.

Chris

-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchris.mfdz.com

Mime
View raw message