Caches are essential, but they don't necessarily belong in the JAX-RS
specification.
On 5/11/11 3:07 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
> Thank's Jan for chiming in. I actually *only* meant *private* cache, maybe I
> was not clear with that before.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Algermissen [mailto:algermissen1971_at_me.com]
>> Sent: Dienstag, 10. Mai 2011 19:00
>> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Proposal to
>> downgrade [JAX_RS_SPEC-39] Client Cache Support to MINOR
>>
>> (Sorry for top posting - but it does not really fit inline)
>>
>> One thing to consider is that there is a significant difference between
>> just any cache and the user agent's private cache. Because cache-
>> control can differentiate between the two.
>>
>> In my experience, in an enterprise IT context, public caching is not
>> that interesting because you want to avoid the possible defects of
>> whatever public cache is out there in your system. Private caching
>> however is essential for building a performant system then. (REST's
>> performance depends on caching by design)
>>
>> In my opinion, support for private caching is one of *the* mission
>> critical aspects and Java clients have lacked this ability far to long.
>>
>> I am with Markus there.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 10, 2011, at 6:40 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt that anywhere along the long line between my browser and my
>> favorite
>>> online shop, the shop software vendor had any chance to influence the
>> cache
>>> settings applied by me, my provider, or the provider's uplink...
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Santiago Pericas-Geertsen
>>>> [mailto:Santiago.PericasGeertsen_at_oracle.com]
>>>> Sent: Montag, 9. Mai 2011 21:23
>>>> To: jsr339-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
>>>> Subject: [jsr339-experts] Re: [jax-rs-spec users] Re: Re: Proposal
>> to
>>>> downgrade [JAX_RS_SPEC-39] Client Cache Support to MINOR
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 9, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Markus KARG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, exactly. Possible but non-trivial is an accurate statement.
>> I'm
>>>>>> also skeptical about a single caching configuration that would
>> work
>>>>>> well for all use cases out of the box.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how the web is working then, since there are lots of
>> caches
>>>> all the
>>>>> way and you have no access to their config at all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even if I can't access them, it does not imply they aren't
>> configured
>>>> and tuned by other people based on some requirements. From my point
>> of
>>>> view, this set of requirements can vary significantly when
>> considering
>>>> the Client API use cases for a one-size-fits-all, transparent cache
>> to
>>>> be mandated.
>>>>
>>>> -- Santiago
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com