3 ms·
You can't have your cookie and eat it, too; the browser has to store profile information or cookie information either way, so this was never about statelessness
by lidHanteyk 6y ago
You can't have your cookie and eat it, too; the browser has to store profile information or cookie information either way, so this was never about statelessness. This is about the expectation that user agents will not just consent to server tracking, but carry around papers which will identify themselves to each server so that they can be better tracked.
- throwaway3neu94 6y agoI'm sorry if I didn't explain what I meant well enough. I was talking about statelessness on the server side. If you remove cookies from HTTP, you now need a database on the server side. You also get extra communication (between the client/DB, or the web service/DB), whereas previously the data would've already been available in both (the client has the jar, and the web service gets it in each the request). Turning a local memory read into a network request can be a difficult architectural change. Also, DynamoDB reads are priced per unit ;-)