On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:02:27 +1100, Robert Collins <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking from an HTTP point of view... > > derived aspects of an object that have *semantic* value should be > included in the ETag; because the ETag controls caching. Read only has > nothing to do with whether a change to a field should invalidate > caches.
So you would disagree with removing bug_heat from the etag calculation? (I didn't read that from your reply, but taking a position to hear definite counterarguments if any) > For PATCH commands, they supply If-Match to only patch the object they > think they are starting from. Its possible server side to decide that: > - the Etag is a recent one > - only readonly fields have been changed since that etag was issued > - so we can accept the patch It sounds like that would require significant changes server-side to store the etags? Thanks, James _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
