That is why i ask if it's feasible to make a fast-path to a view component, so you can have a http module for caching, but still can make a limited part of the page modificable.
On 6 nov, 10:32, "Ken Egozi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see the merit. > Views are simply a bunch of Response.Write methods. > "caching" them would mean nothing. ASP.NET will still need to > Response.Write into the responseStream, just the same. it just won't spend > memory. > > server side caching should be done on other levels. cache results of > expensive and/or out-of-process calls. > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Jokin Cuadrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i have read this > >http://haacked.com/archive/2008/11/05/donut-caching-in-asp.net-mvc.aspx > > about view caching in monorail, i know that one of the caveats at > > monorail is precisely the lack of view caching, and i wonder if it is > > because a technical limitation or if it could be easily doable with > > the current architechture. > > > What will be the necesary steps? > > -- > Ken > Egozi.http://www.kenegozi.com/bloghttp://www.musicglue.comhttp://www.castleproject.orghttp://www.gotfriends.co.il --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
