Ok, I agree with you with the 301 vs 302 issue. I just didn't understand
whether you agree with the redirect-to-the-correct-URL-instead-of-404
suggestion. :)
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:49:01 -0300, Howard Lewis Ship <[email protected]>
wrote:
Not a 301 and here's why.
The full URL, with checksum, represents an immutable resource.
Changing the content of that resource is really replacing it with a new
immutable resource; that resource will have a different URL due to the
checksum.
The redirecting-thing attempts to resolve the resource from partial
information: the path data. It redirects the current version of the
resource, and that's fine.
However, I would not want it to be a permanent redirect, since that might
prevent the same user agent from downloading a newer version of the
resource when that is available at a later date.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo <
[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:43:40 -0300, Barry Books <[email protected]>
wrote:
In other words what's the benefit of the 404? The checksum is not meant
to be a security mechanism.
After fixing my problem here and reading your message, I wonder if
Tapestry should redirect to the correct asset URL with a HTTP Error 301
(Moved permanently) code.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<[email protected]>
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
