On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:12 +0000, James Westby wrote: > On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:02:27 +1100, Robert Collins > <[email protected]> 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
