Jan Rychter wrote:
> Do we really want to support cookie-less sessions? Why? It's a negotiable feature. Your proposal to make Weblocks applications accessible without starting a session helps. :) > More fundamentally, though, I believe weblocks session handling needs to > be reworked, at least for my needs. I don't want to establish sessions > for every request, that's wasteful. Although probably not that serious. > This might have the added advantage of significantly speeding up > weblocks: you would not have to build the whole widget tree on every > request. My lazy-navigation does something similar to a certain extent, > but we could take it much farther. IMO lazy-navigation misses an important feature. MAKE-LAZY-NAVIGATION should be a macro that creates closures of its widget arguments to build widgets as necessary. More on-topic again then how about this two-step plan: 1. Disable session URI rewrite and prune annoying redirects. 2. Introduce session-less widget trees. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
