Now I get you.
Actually, you're right. I forgot about that part.
We can approach it two ways -
1. The way you suggested - the Producer encodes the parameters of the
difference into validationTag. I'm not sure why this wouldn't
2. Draft something (as discussed in the F2F) about the portlet defining
which parameters of the request to getMarkup are the key to the cache
I am, for simplicity, inclined for the first proposal, but am ready to
draft the second one. What is the opinion of the TC?
need for different scopes of caching:
I have a portlet that is cached by the consumer, scoped to the producer.
Say this portlet is capable of personalization through the edit
First user U1 asks for this portlet and gets his personalized content.
Then user U2 asks for the same portlet, but his personalization info is
different. He will get the cached portlet with U1's personalization! Now
assume user U1 also went into edit mode, got the edit page with his current
settings, and pressed cancel. The cache was not invalidated. Now U2 goes into
edit mode - he will get the cached edit page with U1's choices as his
demonstrates the need for user-scoped caching.
need for session scoped caching is demonstrated by: a user opens a portal
page, a session is created for a portlet in this page, the user navigates in
this portlet (actions), thereby changing the session information. He ends up
with page #4 (of the portlet), and some session information that is related to
how he got to this page. page #4 is cached. Now he closes his browser and open
a new one. The session is killed. He navigates to page #4 through the cache,
never actually going to the producer. Then he navigates to page #5, forcing a
WSRP request to the producer. However, the producer can't service this
request - it needs the information that was gathered in pages 1-4.
is possible to create a portlet that will not have this problem, by encoding
all information in the URL, but I don't think it is reasonable to demand
the F2F discussion about caching we suggested using, in addition to the
mechanism you suggest, all the parameters of the action as keys to the cache,
and allowing a portlet to define which parameters can be ignored. I was
missing this in your suggestion. One way to implement this is by telling the
producer it needs to encode these parameters into the validationTag, but
unless the consumer knows the encoding algorithm it does not really
The spec says that the "expires" is a placeholder for a real caching
mechanism. My proposal was intended to replace it.
I didn't say it works around the need for other scopes (I'm not
certain what those needs are). I said that it doesn't look to have problems
that the other scopes do have.
I must be misreading the spec, because it seems to me that expires
is an int number of seconds currently in the spec (which may not be the
the right way, but that's what was decided).
As for scoping to the Producer, can you please explain how that
works around the need for other scopes (unless they are coded into the
On the scope question, I would scope it to the
Producer. This is the easiest and works around problems with the
On the type of time - the validUntil is a
"date-time" field just like Expires is, and I suggest we use the
xsd:dateTime type for it (or whatever its exact name is). This means
that the time is an absolute time.
What is the scope of the cached fragments? user? session?
entity? Should this be explicitly returned in the markupResponse or in
the metadata of the entity, or does the entity encode it into the
validationTag if it wants to?
Should we return the (absolute) expiration time or the
(relative) amount of time until expiration? on the "expires" field I
was for expiration time but I was out-voted.
Title: Caching Mechanism
Document Section: Interfaces/6.1
I am submitting the following proposition to the committee as
a proposition for dealing with caching of the markup. This
proposition deals with "Expires"-like methods of caching, along with
"If-Modified-Since/ETags" type of caching. I believe it is simple
enough to be included in the v1.0 spec.
[The proposal is described as edits to the
[instead of expires in markupResponse, add the
cacheControl: A data
structure, defined in Section 11, which includes information which
CAN be used by the Consumer to cache the markup. This structure
validUntil: The time at which the markup is valid. Until that time the
Consumer CAN use its cache entry instead of calling getMarkup. After this
time passes, the Consumer MAY continue to use this cache entry,
but only after validating it with a getMarkup operation, using the validationTag below, if
validationTag: The Consumer MUST store this tag
along with the markup while the
is valid. This enables the Producer to use this tag to
invalidate the cache entry by sending an invalidationTagPrefix in the performInteraction operation. After the markup expires, the Consumer CAN send the
validationTag in the markupResponse to indicate that it still has the
markup but would like to validate it. The Producer returns a
fault response [TBD] to indicate that the markup is still valid,
otherwise if it returns markup , the Consumer MUST invalidate the old
[add to markupContext the
validationTag: This field CAN be sent to indicate that the Consumer
has cached markup (which was tagged by the Producer with this value)
and wishes to check whether it is still valid.
See validationTag in
markupResponse for more information.
6.1 Operations [performInteraction]
[add the following field to
interactionResponse] invalidationTagPrefix: If the Producer
returned this value, the Consumer MUST expire all markup-s who's
validationTag begins with this value. The Consumer MUST not call
getMarkup with these invalidationTag-s to validate these
[add these fields to the relevant places in section