Http Caching is complicated for everyone

As you may know, one of the talks I’m giving this year is HTTP caching 101.

I feel it’s important to educate everyone on HTTP. One of the interesting things is the fact that the spec names things in a very, well, strange way.

Take my good friend Ayende that complains about Silverlight not respecting the HTTP specification. Now I think everyone will agree that Oren is a brilliant person, so if he gets it wrong, it’s probably the spec that sucks. Point is, silverlight is not necessarily wrong in this case.

See, a resource representation (the thing that is controlled by caching instructions) can be in three states: Up-to-date, fresh and stale.

Up-to date representations are the ones that we know are current according to the origin server.

When a representation is being sent back with no expiry and no caching instructions, it’s allowed (and encouraged) to cache it for however long an implementation may decide, it’s left up to the developers. The spec encourages using heuristics for this. If you want something more reliable, you should provide a max-age or an Expires (or ideally, both).

Now, as long as the representation hasn’t expired, it’s considered by caches (proxies or your browser cache) as fresh.

Now that’s where things become confusing. When you send back a must-revalidate with your response, it doesn’t mean that the client needs to revalidate at all times with the server. It means that a client needs to revalidate once the representation is stale, aka it has gone over it’s expiration date. In the case ayende shows here, the client makes the decision that the data was cacheable previously (I’d think that the response would’ve had a Last-Modified so heuristics could kick in), and so doesn’t see the point of asking the server to validate a fresh cache entry. This is why when Oren added the Expires header in the past, the entry became stale on arrival, making must-revalidate work as expected.

So what if you want the client to revalidate always before serving a cached entry? In that case, you can send a no-cache, which of course doesn’t mean do not cache. It means that the client needs to revalidate both fresh and stale entries, and then may use the cached copy if it’s up to date.

So to sum up: no-cache doesn’t mean do not cache, must-revalidate doesn’t mean always revalidate, most people get http caching wrong because it is not intuitive Thankfully, if you come to my talk, or my ReST training course, or use the openrasta-caching plugin, you won’t have to care much about those problems.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
  • Royale123

    good,go on seb

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=684225904 Henri Toivonen

    thats very nice way of saying “ayende got it wrong”.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/GWEUN6LCR2VT6QOHBSZWWIN2JM kekekela

      Not really that nice, there was really no point in throwing his name in there at all. But, pretty in character for CodeBetter I guess.

      • Sebastien Lambla

        Sorry if you felt that it was like this, I’ve updated the title, it wasn’t meant as a one-up whatever, but the post was triggered by his post and hence was a reply.
        I feel the “pretty in character for CodeBette” is pretty insulting to that whole community but whatever runs your boat.

    • Sebastien Lambla

      The point was that most people get it wrong.