[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev internal cache proposal

From: Leonid Pauzner
Subject: Re: lynx-dev internal cache proposal
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:43:04 +0300 (MSK)

> Lots of questions here:

most problems was from my language/style, things are explained again
in a separate letter.  Few points:
a) "internal cache" should read "cache for sources" (we already had cache
for rendered documents).
b) I have not even start coding yet nor choose a struct's
for keeping the headers (anchor?) and data.

>>       Proccessing the other statuses have not been changed.

> Does it invalidate the cache?  Does the cached copy get deleted?
probably yes for certain responce statuses.

> Suggestion: see is_fresh() (or similar name) in HTCache.c of newer libwww.

>>       The documents we sure as not expired will be loaded from internal cache
>>       immediately (no DNS search, no HTTP request).

> What happens with ^R?  'x'?
this is equivalent to "expired", sending conditional GET with "no-cache"
is enough (was explained below).

>>       No methods other than GET http:// cached (except for internal use like 
>> ^V).

> Do we HAVE TO discriminate against FTP?
No. Just "not implemented" - I haven't look FTP specifications yet,
it probably have no HEAD, right?

> Anything to do about HEAD?
Why? this is always the same as returned from GET.

>>     - Implementation details: cache updated in LYAddVisitedLink(),
>>       e.g. when the document already received successfully,
>>       there should not be any problem from redirections.

> What does "cache updating" mean?
made a pointer;
delete an old cached source if the server returns a newer copy.

>>       Method POST may be not cached for internal use
>>       like changing ^V etc.

> Why not?
it takes a time to understand what current code do with it.

>>       * #fragments?

> Shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Visited links have different entries for them,
but they have a single html source.

>>       * compressed files?

> Why not? :)
cache uncompressed data or the original?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]