cocoon-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Uli Mayring <>
Subject Re: Netscape and document cache
Date Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:18:32 GMT
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Robin Green wrote:

> (2) It would avoid a lot of XSP junk being stored in the Cocoon cache which 
> doesn't need to be there because it is never used. I know personally, that 
> some sites use XSP for almost everything, and a lot of that is not very 
> worth caching, which means a big waste because it is cached anyway! Since 
> some people have reported OutOfMemoryErrors this could be important.

Can you give an example of this junk that doesn't need to be cached?

> >I mean,
> >this would break each and every XSP page in existence.
> No it wouldn't. I am proposing caching no dynamic content by default. The 
> pages that aren't designed to be cached, would still work. The pages that 
> are intended to be cached, would still work, but slower because they would 
> not be cached - until the developers realised and explicitly enabled it 
> again. It wouldn't break anything in terms of functionality, apart from 
> caching.

My users would consider the pages to be broken, considering how long they
take to compile. There's lots of dynamic stuff in there, but once it's
compiled the code just executes every time a page is called. People, who
want their pages not to be cached, can design them that way. But why
change a default, when there's so many pages already in existence using
the old default?

> >The default should always be the most common usage and not some twisted
> >case from some twisted workflow :-)
> Hey this is nothing to do with twisted workflows!

I took your above statement "people use XSP for everything" as meaning
that there is some poor coding out there. Why change a default to
accomodate poor coding and make it hard for well-designed pages?


Ulrich Mayring
DENIC eG, Softwareentwicklung

View raw message