In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Marcus Priesch writes:
>i am very sorry, i completely missed what the ETag really is designed
>for ! sorry for that !
No problem. I did a lot of research on etags and things, but I have
forgotten most of it. It was due for a new look.
>i just read the wikipedia page - and YES, it should only be present on
>GET - and definitely needs to have the encodig part in it !
Yeah. I had hoped that the vary header would do the trick and it did
with varnish. But it looks like I missed the RFC that made it
>but for our use case it would definitely make sense to have that
>metadata thing ... :) - i will give it a look tomorrow ...
Cool. You can use this ticket to track the implementation, test, doc
changes etc. There should be no reason to bump the API version. The
@etag value in the envelope should just be ignored by clients that
don't use it.
+ rouilj, marcus.priesch|
|2021-11-30 20:34:35||rouilj||link||issue2551173 messages|