On 01/25/2012 01:20 AM, Henrik Nordström wrote: > ons 2012-01-25 klockan 15:03 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries: > >> We also need to enumerate how many of these cases are specifically >> "MUST purge" versus "MUST update". The update case is a lot more lenient >> to sync issues than purges are. > > The case which matters here is that update actions done by a user should > be immediately visible by the same user after accepted by the requested > server. > > i.e. POST/PUT/DELETE etc need to invalidate any cached representation of > the requested URL or Content-Location of response when same host.
The above matches my expectations but I do not think it matches Amos' point of view. > Note: This do not really work well today when there is siblings > involved. And it will not work if we use non-shared caches in workers (without some additional mechanism to synchronize them, of course). Thank you, Alex.
