On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Yoichiro Tanaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi John, > > Thank you for your answer. I think that bpc is pretty oddly-name, too. :) > I'll use nocache today. > > Well, I seem that bypassing XML cache with bpc is general way for > developers. > I think that it should change the content written in following url from bpc > to nocache. > > [Bypassing orkut's application XML cache] > http://code.google.com/apis/orkut/docs/orkutdevguide.html#bpc That's just an orkut documentation error. > > > Best regards, > Yoichiro > > On 2008/06/24, at 2:48, John Hjelmstad wrote: > > Yes, I'd recommend using nocache rather than bpc. bpc was always an >> oddly-named parameter. >> the >> John >> >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:11 AM, Yoichiro Tanaka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi. >>> >>> We can disable a caching mechanism by appending &bpc=1 in a lot of SNS >>> that >>> uses Shindig now. >>> However, I can't find the place where the bpc parameter is processed in >>> the >>> trunk code set of Java >>> implementation. >>> >>> Should not bpc be used, and should we use nocache in the future? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Yoichiro >>> >>> --- >>> Yoichiro Tanaka >>> mail-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> blog: http://www.eisbahn.jp/yoichiro/ >>> >>> >>> >>> > --- > Yoichiro Tanaka > mail-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > blog: http://www.eisbahn.jp/yoichiro/ > > >
