Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:47:12 +1000
From: David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: Include mechanism for forrest...
Message-ID: <20051017084712.GA5937@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
References: <435140A9.9060903@brakkee.org> <4351596A.7020302@apache.org>
 <43516270.1050405@brakkee.org> <20051017061533.GA4440@igg.indexgeo.com.au>
 <43535B8A.6030306@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43535B8A.6030306@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i

Ross Gardler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> >Also Cocoon will cache the results of each pipeline, so if
> >the xincluded file changes, then the changes will have
> >no effect.
> 
> The XInclude transformer is not cacheable. This is good with respect to 
> the problem you identify, but bad with respect to performance issues, 
> since the include is processed regardless of whether the included 
> document is changed, thus the generated document can never be cached.

Ah yeah, sorry. I had things the wrong way around.

So it is not a practice that we want to encourage,
though if people want to do it, then they should be
able to. Akin to using the document() function.

-David

> For simple includes we should use CInclude instead, this is cacheable, 
> however, CInclude does not allow the use of XPath so does not fit this 
> use case.
> 
> Ross