Isn't ETag opaque? Its only meaningful to the application itself?
On 10/26/2012 4:59 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Section 4.2.6 correctly says:
>
> "Content encoding is the responsibility of the application. Application-supplied entity providers MAY per- form such encoding and manipulate the HTTP headers accordingly."
>
> Section 6.3 then provides the gzip example for writer interceptors but does not set the corresponding HTTP header. It also does not modify the ETag header, should one be present.
>
> The later I am currently checking up on, but I am currently quite convinced the Etag should be modified to achieve correct cache behavior.
>
> Bothe (or at least the former) cases should IMHO be shown or at least noted as a comment, e.g. // ...adjust Content-Encoding and ETag response headers.
>
> As it stands the example can be quite misleading to developers without deep interest in HTTP mechanics (that is almost all developers).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jan
>
>
--
Bill Burke
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
http://bill.burkecentral.com