XmlHttpRequest not loading latest version of xml

[Matt Silberstein]

Re: Caching: was Re: XmlHttpRequest not loading latest version of xml

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:31:47 -0500, in comp.lang.javas cript , Randy
Webb <HikksNotAtHome @aol.com> in
<6NydnX59o-SIEA_enZ2dnUVZ_ sydnZ2d@comcast .com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Matt Silberstein said the following on 12/3/2005 10:21 PM:[color=green]
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:04:17 -0500, in comp.lang.javas cript , Randy
>> Webb <HikksNotAtHome @aol.com> in <e-qdnUjYOZawrw_eR Vn-iA@comcast.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Matt Silberstein said the following on 12/3/2005 3:45 PM:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:17:14 -0600, in comp.lang.javas cript , "Matt
>>>>Kruse" <newsgroups@mat tkruse.com> in <dmsqvu01kfc@ne ws1.newsguy.com >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim Ley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is just such a broken cache in the EMEA part of one of the
>>>>>>>larges t computer systems company in the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a statement, not a proof.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect that no amount of 'proof' would be adequate to satisfy you.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think both sides of this argument have been laid out pretty well, and
>>>>>anyone wanting to explore the topic could read through the thread and come
>>>>>to their own conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The only thing missing is I wish that I had some kind of numbers to
>>>>work on. I have one side asserting there is major problem with
>>>>misconfigur ed systems, another telling me it is not so, but I lack any
>>>>informati on to make a determination. And I know I can't do a
>>>>sufficien t test on my one. Again, does any know of any reference to
>>>>this being tested?
>>>
>>>One hundred trillion trillion examples of something working won't prove
>>>a theory but one example of it not working will dis-prove it. The AOL
>>>Proxies routinely disregard cache headers. Now, you have to decide
>>>whether you want to take that into account, and work around it as has
>>>been explained many times by appending to the URL. Or, you say to heck
>>>with ~40 million potential customers and you rely on server headers.[/color]
>>
>>
>> I don't understand. You seem to object to my asking for numbers, then
>> give me some numbers to prove your point.[/color]
>
>I had no objection to you asking for numbers.[/color]

True so let me re-phrase: you seem to think that the numbers were not
an important decision point. That is, it was more important to ensure
that the one person was ok than just program for the 10^X. I think
that is a judgment call, not an absolute. Paranoia is the appropriate
approach, but it will only take you so far.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I agree that if AOL will "frequently " get it wrong then that is a
>> sufficient argument. I am quite willing to abandon one theoretically
>> existent user, but not 40M.[/color]
>[color=green]
>> While I believe you is there any published information on this?[/color]
>
>Not that I am aware of that is published on the web. I do know, from
>personal experience, that it can take up to 3 full days for a new page
>to propogate through the AOL proxies.[/color]

Even with appropriate header? Wow!

(As a real aside, but telling about misconfiguratio n, I once had some
Internet email show up 6 months after sending it. It had some tech
advice that was almost disastrous since it was so displaced in time.)

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org

http://www.darfurgenocide.org

http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

[Randy Webb]

Re: Caching: was Re: XmlHttpRequest not loading latest version ofxml

Matt Silberstein said the following on 12/4/2005 11:58 AM:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 01:31:47 -0500, in comp.lang.javas cript , Randy
> Webb <HikksNotAtHome @aol.com> in
> <6NydnX59o-SIEA_enZ2dnUVZ_ sydnZ2d@comcast .com> wrote:
>[/color]

<snip>
[color=blue][color=green]
>>I had no objection to you asking for numbers.[/color]
>
>
> True so let me re-phrase: you seem to think that the numbers were not
> an important decision point. That is, it was more important to ensure
> that the one person was ok than just program for the 10^X. I think
> that is a judgment call, not an absolute. Paranoia is the appropriate
> approach, but it will only take you so far.[/color]

To me, no, the numbers are not that important because most statistics on
the web are generally useless simply because of the nature of the web.
There is no way to come up with reliable numbers on what ISP's honors
what headers without testing every one of them, almost daily, to cover
an changes that are made at any given time.

My numbers were more a point that while you may not be able to prove
something, it is quite easy to disprove something.
[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>I agree that if AOL will "frequently " get it wrong then that is a
>>>sufficient argument. I am quite willing to abandon one theoretically
>>>existent user, but not 40M.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>>>While I believe you is there any published information on this?[/color]
>>
>>Not that I am aware of that is published on the web. I do know, from
>>personal experience, that it can take up to 3 full days for a new page
>>to propogate through the AOL proxies.[/color]
>
>
> Even with appropriate header? Wow![/color]

Yes, even with appropriate headers. The AOL combo didn't even honor a
Control-F5 Refresh to get it from the server after clearing the cache.
It got it from an AOL proxy that was outdated.
[color=blue]
> (As a real aside, but telling about misconfiguratio n, I once had some
> Internet email show up 6 months after sending it. It had some tech
> advice that was almost disastrous since it was so displaced in time.)[/color]

That sounds like AOL Tech support :)

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/