4 ms·
Oh definitely, I meant more in the sense of being able to evict things more "intelligently". If stuff needs to go, it needs to go. It's going to happen. But if
by Klathmon 10y ago
Oh definitely, I meant more in the sense of being able to evict things more "intelligently".
If stuff needs to go, it needs to go. It's going to happen. But if you have to choose between a file which was told to be cached for 10 years, and one which was labeled "immutable" but hasn't been referenced on the page it was previously for the last 10 loads, it might be a better choice to evict the immutable one.
- jacobsenscott 10y agoSo I can build a site that stuffs your cache full of "immutable" content, and all your frequently used "cache for 10 years" stuff gets evicted?
- Klathmon 10y agoYou can already do that... Generally browser caches are "last used first out". So if you start stuffing the cache with a bunch of stuff you can already push the oldest out. And if you fill the whole thing you'll remove everything else. It was actually quite a problem on mobile browsers for a while. IIRC iOS had something like a 10MB cache for the longest time. A few heavy websites and your whole cache would cycle through. Android had a 5MB cache at one point as well! A shitty news site can already fill that single handedly. But my idea here (which I gave about 5 minutes of thought...) Was that immutable content would be evicted before the "10 year" stuff. The idea being that if something replaced an immutable "thing" it could be evicted much sooner. I'm not sure if it would really help at all, just kind of throwing out some ideas.