[FoRK] overhead of RESTful stuff
Gregory Alan Bolcer
greg at bolcer.org
Thu Mar 8 10:46:41 PST 2012
+1 to Lisa also, but that cuts to the heart of REST though, right? A
truly compliant REST application would be 100% cachable.
On 3/8/2012 10:24 AM, Stephen Williams wrote:
> +1, but note that there is, in practice, a big difference between normal
> HTTP web caching and application caching via something like memcached.
> The main difference is that, generally, the former can only be used for
> things that are guaranteed to be immutable for the timeout period. You
> can make use of that in an application by using dynamic URLs, but
> generally memcached is nice because you can easily and efficiently
> invalidate information. Additionally, it may be that the page or REST
> data cannot be cached for various reasons, but the app can avoid a very
> expensive database or similar operation. Typically, I think, with an
> AJAX REST app, the data request is essentially tunneled through the web
> server in a way that is hard for it to cache. It's conceivable to have
> app server capability to invalidate web cache items, and some web
> proxies like Squid have extensive protocols, but I don't think anyone
> does it now.
More information about the FoRK