ingo schuster wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't like that the user of a resource handles expiration of the
> >resource. This
> >should be done by the resource itself or by the administrator of the site.
> >
> >It would be better to have a mechanism to mark that some URL are what we
> >now call
> >local (later we will call it dynamic or non-cacheable). The current
> >implementation does this only for URLs in the localhost. It should do this
> >for a
> >set of URL prefixes or sufixes, that you can set in the configuration.
> >
> >In this way, users of the Cache should not manage behaviour of the
> >entries, but
> >the administrator will mark at deployment "uncacheable" resource extensions,
> >sites or parts of the space of a server (/cgi-bin, /servlet, etc.)
>
> This might be ok for most cases, but I think that's not optimal for psml files:
> A user's psml file is needed for every request, i.e. it would be
> advantageous to cache it.The psml file will change only rarely, however if
> that's the case, we can't use the cached version any more.
> You see, the problem is that a psml file is not either cacheable or
> uncachable, instead it can be cached as long as the customizer doesn't
> update it - only then it has to be reloaded.
>
I think PSML constructs should be cached using the global cache service of
Turbine.
--
Rapha�l Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jetspeed>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
