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.


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
Wicket-user mailing list

Reply via email to