OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp-interfaces message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Questions on the caching sections of the spec

Comments in this color


Stefan Hepper <sthepper@hursley.ibm.com>

09/22/05 08:44 AM

WSRP Interfaces subgroup <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org>
Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Questions on the caching sections of the spec

Just saw that you can specify 0 as expiry value to indicate that the
content is not cacheable. So my first question can be ignored.


Stefan Hepper wrote:
> While reading the current WSRP draft and the HTTP spec I noted some
> differences between caching defined in WSRP and in HTTP. Can someone
> please explain why WSRP derives from HTTP in these points:
> - a producer cannot specify that a piece of markup must not be cached
> - states: "Portlets indicating the cached markup can be used
> SHOULD also supply a new CacheControl structure with a new expiry for
> the markup. "
> shouldn't it also state that the validation token should be set and that
> the current validation token should (or even must) be reused? If the
> producer sets a new validation token for the cached response, how does
> the consumer know which validation token to replace?

RT> While a Consumer could keep this straight (it did send the original validateTag), it would be cleaner to require the new CacheControl structure to resupply the original validateTag.
> - states: "Consumers should be aware that invoking
> performBlockingInteraction and/or handleEvents may cause cached markup
> to become invalid. "
> doesn't this need to be stronger? I would have expected at least a
> SHOULD. How can otherwise the producer expect to be called with
> getMarkup after an action that invalidates the cache entry?
RT> I know there were arguments against making this a MUST, any reason the should doesn't become conformance language (i.e. SHOULD)?
> - why is the concept of HTTP weak validators that allows to have the
> same validation token for slightly different content not supported?
RT> I don't remember any discussion around weak validators. Anyone care to comment on the value vs complexity?
> Thanks.
> Stefan

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]