On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:09:23 +1000, da Silva, Joe wrote: >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> >anyhow, shouldn't 'wwwman' be able to tell if the cache of the directory >> >listing is current before using it? >> Hmm, i was thinking of that too. just to add a fileexistance test before >> printing would be easy for someone that knows C. That is a good example of asking it to do more than necessary IMO. The cacheindex function should be simply limited to doing exactly what it implies - showing what it thinks is in cache. It should be up to Arachne to get cache.idx synchronized with cache. There is hardly any value in duplicating the work. > Also, it must see if there are any new files ... Arachne better take care of this too, otherwise cache.idx is useless.<g> >> >I invariably have to "refresh/reload" >> >anything 'wwwman' shows me, because too often it's outdated and >> >I can't trust it. That can happen if you return to the cached "cacheindex" page after surfing. The problem here is that item should never be cached. <G> - Clarence Verge - Back to using Arachne V1.62 ....
