launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Robert Collins <robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 ;)

-Rob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part