launchpad-dev team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Bug heat and the API
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:12 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:02:27 +1100, Robert Collins <robert.collins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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)
As a starting point, yes.
> > 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?
probably, but as Deryck says, we should fix the root cause ;)
Description: This is a digitally signed message part