23.12.2013, 05:46, "Mikeal Rogers" <[email protected]>:
On Dec 22, 2013, at 4:45PM, Alex Kocharin <[email protected]> wrote:23.12.2013, 04:36, "Mikeal Rogers" <[email protected]>:* allow aggressive caching, reducing the cost of the npm registry and making npm use faster for most use casesthis isn't an issue. the cache control can, and must, be proactively invalidated on _changes from the database for document urls anyway, it's trivial to do the same for tarball changes. it can literally cache forever so long as it responds to pro-active invlaidation.HTTP caches know nothing about _changes feed.NPM can't sit behind a standard HTTP cache on a TTL because a document change must take effect immediately. The work going in to putting it behind a cache is using a _changes listener to invalidate the cache.
It's not possible to cache json documents (I'd argue with it though). But immutable tarballs will allow caching them indefinitely without revalidating, and it effectively cuts an amount of if-modified requests in a half.
--
Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/
Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "nodejs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
