On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 02:01:09PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: >> The X-Couch-Full-Commit header is a way for the client and server to >> negotiate with each other about the nature and status of the stored >> resource representation. This is suitably related to the transfer >> protocol. > > Nope. > > The TRANSPORT protocol is not the correct place to be discussing the status of > the server maintained resource representation. The caching headers are not > related to the server or client state in this way, they only speak about what > is > sent along the wire. There is a clear distinction here. >
Cache-Control ~= Make sure I'm getting most recent state of resource X Full-Commit ~= Make sure this is the most recent state of resource X What is the clear distinction that I'm missing? >> I apologize if you feel insulted. It wasn't meant as such. I know your >> knowledge of HTTP and associated topics far exceeds mine, but you >> can't expect me to just accept an argument based on that alone. > > I didn't mean to argue by assertion or from authority. My understanding of > HTTP > is way surpassed by others who might still correct me on this issue. I had > assumed a level of familiarity with HTTP that would make my points > self-evident > without explanation. > > -- > Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater >
