Just saw that you can specify 0 as expiry value to indicate that the
content is not cacheable. So my first question can be ignored.
Stefan
Stefan Hepper wrote:
> While reading the current WSRP draft and the HTTP spec I noted some
> differences between caching defined in WSRP and in HTTP. Can someone
> please explain why WSRP derives from HTTP in these points:
>
> - a producer cannot specify that a piece of markup must not be cached
>
> - 6.2.1.1 states: "Portlets indicating the cached markup can be used
> SHOULD also supply a new CacheControl structure with a new expiry for
> the markup. "
> shouldn't it also state that the validation token should be set and that
> the current validation token should (or even must) be reused? If the
> producer sets a new validation token for the cached response, how does
> the consumer know which validation token to replace?
>
> - 6.2.1.2 states: "Consumers should be aware that invoking
> performBlockingInteraction and/or handleEvents may cause cached markup
> to become invalid. "
> doesn't this need to be stronger? I would have expected at least a
> SHOULD. How can otherwise the producer expect to be called with
> getMarkup after an action that invalidates the cache entry?
>
> - why is the concept of HTTP weak validators that allows to have the
> same validation token for slightly different content not supported?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
