Re: PROPOSAL: URL-syntax (Was: Re: Official revision syntax for Subversion URLs)

Daniel Patterson wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 17:33, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>From: SLOGEN [mailto:jensen@slog.dk]

>>> - The "?" notation makes the results uncacheable (jf.
>>>ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2616.txt)
>>Section?

You got pinned there, It seems I'm not correct. My only "defence" is
that my knowledge of HTTP stems from 1.0-days, and practical experience.
I moved on from being a CGI programmer 5 years ago.

> 13.9 probably. However, HTTP/1.1 servers *may* indicate that URI's
> with the "?" character in them may be cached.
...
> We note one exception to this rule: since some applications have
> traditionally used GETs and HEADs with query URLs (those containing a
> "?" in the rel_path part) to perform operations with significant side
> effects, caches MUST NOT treat responses to such URIs as fresh unless
> the server provides an explicit expiration time. This specifically
> means that responses from HTTP/1.0 servers for such URIs SHOULD NOT
> be taken from a cache. See section 9.1.1 for related information.

Hmm.... that still doesn't help my claim, even though it suggests that
using "?" is generally a bad idea if you want people to cache the results.

I'm not really aware of the current situation on the "browser-market",
but a few years ago a main problem in CGI was to control caching
consistently on all browsers. IE and Netscape (and others) did different
stuff with the "?" notation, as well as "Cache-control:" and "Expires:"
headers.

Anyway, the major point is not whether caching occurs or not, that's up
to the client, I just want to increase chances of it.

The major point is, that adding the revision parameter to the repository
instead of the end-of-url seems to be a better way to express the
intentions.

-- 
Helge
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org