3 ms·

And how do you check what the new name of the content you haven't seen is?

• taeric 4y ago
  Serious question? There will be a root object that has a stable name through updates. When you write that, you embed current content hashes in it. Someone could get the cached of it, of course. But since it content addresses what it links to, it should avoid incoherent groups of cached data.
  • jakear 4y ago
    I agree this would provide for increased coherency, but the additional indirection is hardly ideal. And really it's just kicking the caching problem up to a super-object that will probably be thrashed much harder than any individual file, and may be larger than each individual file. All in all it's a "certified hard problem", there's a bunch of domain specific nuance an HN thread couldn't hope to capture.
    • taeric 4y ago
      The extra indirection may or may not be a problem, of course. For a lot of places this is used, it is "index.html," after all. That said, I do find folks bend way too many things into fitting this pattern; such that I do not mean to be dismissive of the criticism.