Thanks Juliusz. I understand that it is risky. I too am very cautious about. It is a sorta Plan-B that I am trying.
However, would not get to a conclusion until I get fully satisfied about none of the HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/1.0 is broken coz of the changes. On the other side, doing the changes also helps me to understand HTTP proto better :) Thanks again. On 27/04/2009, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, I understand that POST, by definition is non-cacheable. I also >> have PRG pattern in mind. With PRG pattern, caching the GET part is >> simpler. However, sending the first POST request to the server could >> not be avoided. > > For anyone interested -- PRG means ``POST-Redirect-GET''. It's the > common idiom of having the server reply to a POST with a redirect, which > causes the client to GET the next page, which in turn is cachable. > >> Each and every POST request (XML) is huge... approx 2 - 5 kb. > > As Phil Wadler once said about XML, > > « The problem it solves is not hard. It doesn't solve it very well. » > > Sorry, Arun, but I suspect that you're trying to solve a problem at the > wrong layer. > > Juliusz > -- Regards, Arun S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now & Save for Velocity, the Web Performance & Operations Conference from O'Reilly Media. Velocity features a full day of expert-led, hands-on workshops and two days of sessions from industry leaders in dedicated Performance & Operations tracks. Use code vel09scf and Save an extra 15% before 5/3. http://p.sf.net/sfu/velocityconf _______________________________________________ Polipo-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/polipo-users
