Re: Re: [PEPr] Comment on HTTP::HTTP_Cache

On Tuesday 07 December 2004 02:39 pm, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > Hi, > > > Just a quick glance through the proposal, but this looks like it does the > > same thing as HTTP_Header_Cache (in the HTTP_Header package), with the > > addition of ETags support. > > Oh, didn't know that this exists :) > ETag is the only feature that is implemented in HTTP_Cache :) > Sounds like a good match, then. > > Any reason that can't be implemented in HTTP_Header_Cache? > > It could be done, but I think it would be better, if we had a separate > package for this. If using the E-Tag, you probably do not need any of > the other features that are provided by HTTP_Header_Cache. > > I guess including this in HTTP_Header_Cache would result in a BC break. > Maybe splitting HTTP_Header_Cache from HTTP_Header and moving the > functionailty to a new package would be a better solution. > I disagree. There is nothing wrong with using ETag in conjunction with Last-Modified, and I don't see how this would cause a BC break. ETag support is a new feature, not a change to an existing one. Even if there were problems, ETag support could be made optional.

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature]