cacheable

It's likely that they want unencrypted because the data is then easily cacheable, drastically reducing cost on network operators.

It's very cacheable which means you might just be loading a static file served by a regular web server.

Github's data is difficult to cache and many pages load piecemeal using turbolinks which itself creates lots of un-cacheable requests (cacheable only until someone pushes a new commit).

Of course, if you're running WordPress, Drupal, or a CMS designed to produce cacheable sites then Railgun isn't needed.

If your content is highly cacheable, you can still use a third-party CDN and come out ahead.

Ideally, all your pages should be cacheable to the point of being static, with dynamic content being populated by JS.

But if the response structure is dictated by the client, it seems like responses might differ and not be cacheable.

Still, with an attack of this magnitude, no matter how cacheable, you're going to feel it.

What you're hoping for is that some cacheable function of many documents is also a monoid.

As the pages are cacheable, the CDN will decrease the load on their server significantly.

It's taking over 1s to get that single file, which appears [1] cacheable.

The new API does support GET for requests that are cacheable (e.g.

"mysite.com/multiplicationTable.html" is nicely cacheable; You can cache "mysite.com/mult?a=5&b=10" if you want to, but how likely is someone to request that same URL again before it falls out of cache?