Well, it is intended to be part of the low-level API, as it deals with native http features. Also, the question is, whether an SPI/API is actually needed or whether it would be enough to enforce the existence of a ready-to-use-configuration-free cache.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Burke [mailto:bburke_at_redhat.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 5. Mai 2011 16:19
> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: Proposal to downgrade [JAX_RS_SPEC-39]
> Client Cache Support to MINOR
>
> I think a cache spi/api is a low priority item. Let's nail down the
> low-level client API first, then start thinking about these items.
>
> On 5/4/11 12:11 PM, Marek Potociar wrote:
> > Hello *,
> >
> > I just looked more closely at the feature request #39
> (http://java.net/jira/browse/JAX_RS_SPEC-39) and it seems to me
> > now that the importance of the proposed feature (standard API for
> client cache configuration and API for enabling or
> > disabling local caches) is is currently somewhat overrated.
> >
> > The feature looks like a nice to have thing to me. Currently proposed
> API programming model lets you plug in features
> > like local cache seamlessly without the framework actually knowing
> about it. Additionally, I believe that configuration
> > is always closely related to an implementation and can be covered by
> the proposed extensible configuration model.
> >
> > I would like to downgrade priority of the issue to MINOR. Please let
> me know if you have any objections.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Marek
>
> --
> Bill Burke
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
> http://bill.burkecentral.com