Mailing-List: contact users-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <40C0A07C.1050503@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:17:00 +0200
From: Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heinicke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: users@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Caching ancillary file content
References: <1086267306.22528.21.camel@oimelc.ucc.ie>
	 <40C056D4.1010305@gmx.de> <1086365159.32518.21.camel@oimelc.ucc.ie>
In-Reply-To: <1086365159.32518.21.camel@oimelc.ucc.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 04.06.2004 18:06, Peter Flynn wrote:

>>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10203
> 
> That's actually the reverse of this problem: the OP seems
> to be complaining that ancillary data retrieved from a call
> to the document() function is *not* being cached, whereas
> in fact it *is* (and shouldn't be) -- and the waters were
> muddied by the problem being confused with the behaviour of
> xsl:include.

No, it matches exactly your problem. The summary is "Docs referenced by 
XSLT's document() are not included in cache validity". This means the 
cache validity calculation of the transformation is not based on 
external documents, so changes in a document accessed via document() are 
not recognized and the cache is seen as valid.

> Not important now: I coded around it. But it would be a big
> benefit to the behaviour of Cocoon if this was fixed: it is
> *not*, as Carsten suggests, a "feature request": it's a bug.

You are free to add your comment to the bug and maybe also vote for it.

Joerg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@cocoon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@cocoon.apache.org