Invalidating a competitive process
Below is an overview with as little personal opinion as possible. Over the last 13 months, I've twice highlighted Ohio's redistricting concerns, the last of which in the Kegler Brown's post-election report, where we predicted the issue would make the ballot (although, admittedly, during a future General Assembly after a formal recommendation from the Constitutional Modernization Commission).This method, unlike purge, does not immediately remove cached content from the caching proxy.Instead, the cached content is updated after a client requests that specific information.There are a few alternatives to cache invalidation that still deliver updated content to the client.One alternative is to expire the cached content quickly by reducing the time-to-live (TTL) to a very low value.This method functions as an alternative to other methods of displaying new content to connected clients.Invalidation is carried out by changing the application data, which in turn marks the information received by the client as out-of-date.
There are three specific methods to invalidate a cache, but not all caching proxies support these methods. When the client requests the data again, it is fetched from the application and stored in the caching proxy.
But to the extent that it is impossible to comply with each of the requirements in drawing districts, the proposal would permit the Commission to commit the fewest possible violations and to further require an explanatory statement as to why strict compliance could not be achieved.
The proposed amendment curiously requires the Commission to comply with the U. Constitution and federal law, which is a compromise of language from an earlier version of the bill explicitly incorporating protection of minority voting rights into the Constitution.
Another alternative is to validate the cached content at each request.
A third option is to not cache content requested by the client.
Search for invalidating a competitive process:
It is fortuitous that a General Assembly session that began with the Ohio Supreme Court narrowly approving the heavily Republican-leaning state legislative maps in a 4-3 decision will conclude with a bi-partisan plan to change the rules governing how Ohio will redistrict in the future. Reapportionment begins by taking the state's total population and dividing it by 99 to obtain a ratio of representation, i.e., the target population for each House district. The hard part – redistricting – is determining what county, city, village and township residents will become part of a specific district within that target population.