Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-Id: <AD525EA4-37DD-42A5-AB0C-A72ECC62A560@reverycodes.com>
From: Vadim Gritsenko <vadim@reverycodes.com>
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <47EA735E.6050209@gmx.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2)
Subject: Re: JNet integration
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:15:07 -0400
References: <47E509B2.7050003@tuffmail.com> <47E50A75.8090001@apache.org>
 <47E51B61.2050701@tuffmail.com> <47E7F20D.3020308@tuffmail.com>
 <47E8A7CE.6040508@apache.org> <47E9061C.5030105@tuffmail.com>
 <47E911D9.9040503@apache.org> <47E9B1CA.6050202@gmx.de>
 <47E9FC91.3080004@apache.org> <47EA37F4.3000206@gmx.de>
 <47EA3BB0.5090303@apache.org> <47EA4624.8020600@gmx.de>
 <47EA4AB3.3090403@apache.org> <47EA6726.4070208@gmx.at>
 <FE9E8D50-8D41-4486-84BA-42A680C7BEC8@reverycodes.com>
 <47EA735E.6050209@gmx.at>

On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Steven Dolg wrote:
> Vadim Gritsenko schrieb:
>> On Mar 26, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Steven Dolg wrote:
>>>
>>> Carsten Ziegeler schrieb:
>>>> The pipeline writer needs to know how uri resolving works. He  
>>>> needs to know what input values are allowed, what relative values  
>>>> mean etc.
>>>>
>>>> But I will turn around the questions :) What caching do you need?  
>>>> The ultra complex caching we currently have which can cache  
>>>> partial pipelines? Or just the result of a pipeline?
>>> I believe this is a very important question.
>>
>> Not really. Partial pipeline caching is implemented completely by  
>> the pipeline using all already existing APIs which were used by  
>> regular caching. From the perspective of pipeline class users, or  
>> from the perspective of classes which pipeline uses, there is no  
>> difference between using 'partial-response-caching' and 'complete- 
>> response-caching' pipelines. The distinction is only in private  
>> implementation details.
> I completely agree.
> But aren't we the ones talking about those "private implementation  
> details"...
> And on the other hand: If partial vs. complete caching makes no  
> difference for the user/caller, why bother maintaining both?

It means no difference in the code, but for the user it has a real  
benefit - user does not have to be an expert in cocoon caching,  
partial response caching will give him better performance without him  
expending an effort into optimizing his sitemap.

Vadim