Hi,
it appears to me that this header replicates something that is already
there; just use the last event ID as etag, and then you can do something
like:
GET /foobar HTTP/1.1
If-None-Match: abc
Note that this makes If-None-Match a request header on which the
response varies, thus it should
On 1/03/10 11:47 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
Thanks Addison - and yes, I think this makes a lot of sense for a
content-style spec like HTML, however as the Widgets PC is a
configuration document most of which is IRIs, integers and so on
rather than text content its less of a clear case.
On Mar 2, 2010, at 2:59 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Hi,
it appears to me that this header replicates something that is
already there; just use the last event ID as etag, and then you can
do something like:
GET /foobar HTTP/1.1
If-None-Match: abc
Note that this makes If-None-Match a
On 02.03.2010 12:53, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Using If-None-Match this way seems like a bad fit in a couple of ways:
- Event IDs are not ETags at the HTTP level. It seems like a layering
violation to treat event IDs, or indeed anything in the response body
rather than in the ETag header, as
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow jor...@chromium.org wrote:
Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general idea of
promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very big resource
penalty for using an API like this rather than callbacks or what's currently
On 2 Mar 2010, at 11:28, Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 1/03/10 11:47 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
Thanks Addison - and yes, I think this makes a lot of sense for a
content-style spec like HTML, however as the Widgets PC is a
configuration document most of which is IRIs, integers and so on
rather
On Mar 2, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 02.03.2010 12:53, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Using If-None-Match this way seems like a bad fit in a couple of
ways:
- Event IDs are not ETags at the HTTP level. It seems like a layering
violation to treat event IDs, or indeed anything in
On 02.03.2010 19:11, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Mar 2, 2010, at 4:07 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 02.03.2010 12:53, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Using If-None-Match this way seems like a bad fit in a couple of ways:
- Event IDs are not ETags at the HTTP level. It seems like a layering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/1/2010 2:52 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
Thanks for the pointers. I'm actually pretty sold on the general
idea of promises, and my intuition is that there won't be a very
big resource penalty for using an API like this rather than
callbacks or
