cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pier Fumagalli <p...@betaversion.org>
Subject Re: FIXME in IncludeTransformer [Was: Re: Adding Files to Subversion]
Date Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:37:47 GMT
On 27 Sep 2004, at 21:06, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
>
>> What about using a similar approach to generate the cache? I'll try 
>> to set up a test environment and to give it a shot if you have 
>> nothing against it!
>
> Do you refer to the fact that it uses list of request parameters and 
> its values as a cache key?
>
> Yes, I'm against it. Request parameter in previous email was simply an 
> example - it could be anything from the environment at large (== JVM 
> where application is running + OS + ...).

Yep... I see your point, you're 100% right...

> Proper solution will be composed key similar to the composed validity 
> in IncludeTransformer. This also can be made configurable: in simplier 
> cases, you won't need aggregated key and can use transformer as it is 
> now.

I was thinking about one thing... The one thing that troubles us is the 
"request". That introduce a degree of variability that (i don't know to 
what degree), might be counter-productive to analyze and cache...

What about if we were doing "subrequest"s, much like in Apache... I 
mean, why making the "included" request inherit all the varible stuff? 
Wouldn't it be simply easier to create a new request/response and start 
from a clean status.

Then we could re-create the request by something like:

<incl:include src="proto://whatever">
   <incl:param name="parameterName">value</incl:param>
</incl:include>

	Pier

Mime
View raw message