> I propose that we stop attempting to cache a Portlet. I can > think of no reason why it would be a benefit. A Portlet > cannot hold much in the way of instance variables, so it > should not have any significant cost to construct.
-1 I think we should be going in the other direction, caching more objects and stop creating so many objects in aggregation > -----Original Message----- > From: Glenn Golden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 1:01 PM > To: Jetspeed-Dev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > Subject: Portlet caching - NOT > > > I propose that we stop attempting to cache a Portlet. I can > think of no reason why it would be a benefit. A Portlet > cannot hold much in the way of instance variables, so it > should not have any significant cost to construct. > > There are many other objects that are constructed in the > process of making a PortletSet to satisfy a request, and > these are not cached. > > I'll be re-writing the JetspeedPortletFactoryService to > introduce the PortletInstance over the next few days. This > will touch the portlet caching code. I think its going to be a lot of changes, is potentially destabilizing. Recommend creating a branch.... David > > - Glenn > > -------------------------------------------- > Glenn R. Golden, Systems Research Programmer > University of Michigan School of Information > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 734-615-1419 > -------------------------------------------- > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:jetspeed-dev-> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For > additional commands, > e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
