Hi, perfecto Rob, as usual!
cheers, Thierry Boileau > Hi Cliff, > > Jerome is on holiday, so I'll take a shot at this; if I'm wrong, > Thierry will take a shot at me :-) > > I'm pretty sure that the "transient" property is only useful to > identify entities that can only be consumed once; for example, > stream-based representations. I don't think they do or are meant to > influence cache behavior in any way. > > This RFE tracks the idea of introducing caching support to Restlet > (both internally, and influencing client side cache behavior): > http://restlet.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=25 Interesting work > is scheduled to happen on this in the near future. > > At present, you must set the Cache-Control header directly using the > non-standard header > mechanism: > http://www.restlet.org/documentation/1.1/api/org/restlet/data/Message.html#getAttributes() > > <http://www.restlet.org/documentation/1.1/api/org/restlet/data/Message.html#getAttributes%28%29> > > This will produce a warning, I think (unless it was turned off > recently) but will get the desired effect. > > I was hoping to propose a patch in the 1.1 timeframe that would > directly support the Cache-Control header without yet conquering the > rest of RFE 25, but did not get around to it. I still think this is > worth doing in a 1.1 incremental release -- it's a common, common need. > > > http://blog.httpwatch.com/2008/10/15/two-important-differences-between-firefox-and-ie-caching/ > > I read this article and, while I think its technical statements are > correct, it seems to have been written from the perspective that IE's > behavior is per spec, which I feel it is not. > > (which is hopefully correct), FF will only respond as expected if > you /also /set "no-store". In otherwords, "Cache-control: > no-cache no-store". > > See sections 14.9.1 and 14.9.2 of the HTTP 1.1 RFC: > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.9.1 > > "no-cache" will stop FF from storing the page in the disk cache for > subsequent requests -- but you can still generally hit the back button > to return to the page as originally seen. You must use "no-store" if > you mean to avoid disclosure of sensitive information, not store the > page anywhere including the memory cache, and to reload it on any > redisplay. I feel that this behavior tracks the RFC text more > accurately; IE has it wrong by not using "no-store" for this purpose. > > Depending on what you mean to happen, you should use the appropriate > thing. I use "no-store" on pages that absolutely must not be reloaded > for any reason, but generally use "no-cache" for good performance > combined with good "liveness" of content. > > - R > ------------------------------------------------------ http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=981564
