On 9/18/06, Ryan Sonnek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok.  I'm done here....this is going nowhere, and I guarentee I'm not the only one out there that has run into this issue.  It's too bad that this has turned into a mud slinging contest.  The Rails team is obviously much more understanding of these issues and how to solve them.

i am not saying this is not a problem, but i am looking for a resonable solution. just because rails has a "general" solution that "just works" but is dumb doesnt mean we should fall off the cliff with it. if i use dojo in my app on every page, why would i want the user to pull down 300KB on every request?

If it's just "5 lines of code", why not provide this simple solution for other non-image resources so that every developer doesn't need to re-invent the wheel.  The more useable Wicket is "out of the box", the fewer messages will be sent to this mailing list asking "how do i prevent caching of these resources?"

because those 5 lines define what version really means for that particular usecase. in that case the scope of the version is a request. for most packaged resource the scope of the version is the timestamp of the file. for other resources it might be something totally different - like a user session. we need to find an elegant way where you can define this definition of the version when you are creating the resource.

-Igor

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Reply via email to