Yes... but it's also orthogonal IMO. The point here is that, regardless the fetcher's behavior, we shouldn't cache a 304 -- there's no guarantee that the Shindig fetcher's behavior is tied to the original request (esp. request headers such as If-None-Match et al). Stated another way, this is Shindig-as-fetcher-to-site rather than client-as-fetcher-to-Shindig.
Etag support lives more on the "front end" of the proxying pipeline, utilizing state that's under the control of the shindig back-end. --j On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > seems fine for a first cut. I assume the etag etal support comes > later... > > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/1605041/show >
