Paul Lindner wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I suppose that one could put the whole uri->cachefile mapping into a
> custom PerlTransHandler and leave Apache::CacheContent as-is..
yeah, I think that we're starting to talk about two different
approaches now. the cool thing about the current logic is that no
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 02:31:36AM -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
> Right. A more elaborate Apache::CacheContent would have a filename
> hash function, and a separate cache directory structure along the
> lines of Cache::FileCache.
Just curious -- any reason not to use Cache::Cache as the persistan
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 01:50:52AM -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Paul Lindner wrote:
>
> > > BTW -- I think where the docs are cached should be configurable. I don't
> > > like the idea of the document root writable by the web process.
> >
> > That's the price you pay fo
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Paul Lindner wrote:
> > BTW -- I think where the docs are cached should be configurable. I don't
> > like the idea of the document root writable by the web process.
>
> That's the price you pay for this functionality. Because we use
> Apache's native file serving code we ne
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 12:55:25PM -0800, Andrew Ho wrote:
> Hello,
>
> PL>That's the price you pay for this functionality. Because we use
> PL>Apache's native file serving code we need a url->directory mapping
> PL>somewhere.
> PL>
> PL>Of course you don't need to make the entire docroot writab
Hello,
PL>That's the price you pay for this functionality. Because we use
PL>Apache's native file serving code we need a url->directory mapping
PL>somewhere.
PL>
PL>Of course you don't need to make the entire docroot writable, just the
PL>directory corresponding to your script.
Apologies if thi
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Paul Lindner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:04:26AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > At 08:19 AM 12/06/01 -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
> >
> > Ok, hit me over the head. Why wouldn't you want to use a caching proxy?
>
> Apache::CacheContent gives you more control over the c
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:47:35AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> >> Ok, hit me over the head. Why wouldn't you want to use a caching proxy?
> >
> >Apache::CacheContent gives you more control over the caching process
> >and keeps the expiration headers from leaking to the browser.
>
> Ok, I see.
>
At 10:33 AM 12/06/01 -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:04:26AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
>> At 08:19 AM 12/06/01 -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
>>
>> Ok, hit me over the head. Why wouldn't you want to use a caching proxy?
>
>Apache::CacheContent gives you more control over the
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Paul Lindner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:04:26AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> > At 08:19 AM 12/06/01 -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
> >
> > Ok, hit me over the head. Why wouldn't you want to use a caching proxy?
>
> Apache::CacheContent gives you more control over the cac
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 10:04:26AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> At 08:19 AM 12/06/01 -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
>
> Ok, hit me over the head. Why wouldn't you want to use a caching proxy?
Apache::CacheContent gives you more control over the caching process
and keeps the expiration headers from
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:19:09 -0800
Paul Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've attached a README below. To download it go to
> http://www.modperlcookbook.org/code.html
Nice one. here's a patch to make the sample code work :)
--- CacheContent.pm~Thu Dec 6 22:11:35 2001
+++ CacheContent.
On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 10:04:26 -0800
Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW -- I think where the docs are cached should be configurable. I don't
> like the idea of the document root writable by the web process.
Maybe:
Alias /cached /tmp/cache
--
Tatsuhiko Miyagawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 08:19 AM 12/06/01 -0800, Paul Lindner wrote:
Ok, hit me over the head. Why wouldn't you want to use a caching proxy?
BTW -- I think where the docs are cached should be configurable. I don't
like the idea of the document root writable by the web process.
Bill Moseley
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
> I would like to propose a new Apache module before I send it off to
> CPAN. The name chosen is Apache::CacheContent.
This is very cool. I was planning to write one of these, and now I don't
have to. Your implementation is short and interesting. I was planning to
do it with a PerlFixupHandle
Hi,
I would like to propose a new Apache module before I send it off to
CPAN. The name chosen is Apache::CacheContent.
It's pretty generic code, and is intended to be subclassed. It
handles the gory details of caching a page to disk and serving it up
until it expires.
It's derived from work
16 matches
Mail list logo
