On Wednesday 13 September 2006 20:58, Jörg Walter wrote: > This is what cachecache can do for you.
Oh, OK! > But As Matt already said, I'd check if it is really needed. Caching > always adds an overhead, and perhaps your bottleneck is somewhere > else. Yup. Well, right now, I haven't got a bottleneck :-) But since I do think behind an ordinary cable provider, and there are many more readers than posters, a reverse proxy service on a real line could serve most of the content from cache if I sent the proper headers, and could be set up easily without me having root access, as opposed to my server, where I want full control. > > I envision that HTTP's caching specification could also be used > > internally in the pipeline, so that if you suddenly decide to throw > > a part of the pipe away, the client or a proxy will still see and > > use HTTP headers for caching. > > How should that work? Clients cannot be aware of your pipeline > structure. Oh, what I meant was that I used last-modified and if-modified-since in the infrastructure, and suddenly decided that part of the infrastructure was not needed or could be done better elsewhere, the headers could be used directly without any modifications. > > > I haven't had time to look properly into Ax2, and I now recognize > > the value of patches more than I did back when I started, but since > > you asked, then yeah, a caching infrastructure is a very compelling > > feature... :-) > > Well... up to now, I'd say "no". AxKit2 performance is great, you > should really go and check it out yourself. Maybe manual caching is > more than sufficient. Perhaps! :-) Cheers, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Programmer / Astrophysicist / Ski-orienteer / Orienteer / Mountaineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/ OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
