On 2/8/06, Lee Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Solprovider wrote > >I think you are attacking the issue from the wrong side. Rather than > >cache it and then worry about deleting it from cache, why not see it > >as something dynamic that should never be cached? > > Editing is relatively rare compared to page viewing, so seems a shame not to > take advantage of caching > > > Is the processing > >required to generate this page enough to hurt performance? > The honest answer is I don't know. However it does save at least 2 extra > transform and serializations which instinctivelly > feels like a good thing.
I prefer programming for best performance too. A few extra transforms and serializations will not be noticed, but if the page is accessed often, and editing is rare, it is best if you use the cache. I have not studied how publishing works. It sounds like there is no method for deleting dependencies from the cache. I can think of a few alternatives, but none are as good as adding that feature. (Like deleting the files from cache after any edit, regardless of whether it is a dependency.) Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about publishing will enter the discussion. solprovider --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
