On 05/11/2011 01:37 AM, Bill wrote:
> Markus, Marek, can we compromise for now by
>
> 1 : Indicating how one could introduce a cache via client filters. This allows users to source the cache impl separate
> from the client impl.
If it is a separate MINOR task that gets addressed once we resolve those top priority areas where we have a consensus
about their importance, I would be fine with that.
>
> 2: Ensuring that the cache http directives are exposed clearly in the client API and possibly including some exception
> handling support things like 409 (not unlike I get convenience methods like ok() and created() in the server. This gives
> the cache implementor programmatic access to the request data. It also helps us focuses on Bill's point that we need to
> get the low level API right, and we can use cache introduction as a form of sanity check.
Same as above, IMHO slightly less important that the #1.
Marek
>
> ?
>
> Bill