You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@cocoon.apache.org by Drasko Kokic <dr...@yahoo.com> on 2000/11/27 16:39:57 UTC
[C1.8.1-dev] Caching
I am also having problems with caching and am trying
to identify where the problem might be.
Maybe compleatly unrelated but ... the META tags in
the output document have alphabetically sorted
atributes.
The original code (in xsl file):
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Expires" CONTENT="Fri, Jun 12 1981
08:20:00 GMT"/>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache"/>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Cache-Control"
CONTENT="no-cache"/>
becomes:
<META content="Fri, Jun 12 1981 08:20:00 GMT"
http-equiv="Expires">
<META content="no-cache" http-equiv="Pragma">
<META content="no-cache" http-equiv="Cache-Control">
(Also the atribute names are written in small letters)
WOULD THIS BE THE REASON THAT SOME BROWSERS/PROXIES
ARE STILL SERVING THE OLD VERSIONS FROM THEIR CACHING
AREA?!
Is it possible to change this behaviour of Cocoon
(Xalan) ???
TIA
Drasko
--- Robin Green <gr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Reasons:
>
> (1) The combination of this change, with the
> last-modified-header, lets
> clients and web proxies do some useful caching
> (apart from just images etc.
> which they can already cache), taking some load off
> the server.
>
> (2) It would avoid a lot of XSP junk being stored in
> the Cocoon cache which
> doesn't need to be there because it is never used. I
> know personally, that
> some sites use XSP for almost everything, and a lot
> of that is not very
> worth caching, which means a big waste because it is
> cached anyway! Since
> some people have reported OutOfMemoryErrors this
> could be important.
>
> >I mean,
> >this would break each and every XSP page in
> existence.
>
> No it wouldn't. I am proposing caching no dynamic
> content by default. The
> pages that aren't designed to be cached, would still
> work. The pages that
> are intended to be cached, would still work, but
> slower because they would
> not be cached - until the developers realised and
> explicitly enabled it
> again. It wouldn't break anything in terms of
> functionality, apart from
> caching.
>
> >The default should always be the most common usage
> and not some twisted
> >case from some twisted workflow :-)
>
> Hey this is nothing to do with twisted workflows!
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
Re: [C1.8.1-dev] Caching
Posted by Matthew Cordes <mc...@maine.edu>.
> Maybe compleatly unrelated but ... the META tags in
> the output document have alphabetically sorted
> atributes.
Xalan sorts attributes alphabetically not cocoon.
I don't think this could be your caching problem, anyone
have more info?
-matt
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 07:39:57AM -0800, Drasko Kokic wrote:
> I am also having problems with caching and am trying
> to identify where the problem might be.
>
> Maybe compleatly unrelated but ... the META tags in
> the output document have alphabetically sorted
> atributes.
>
> The original code (in xsl file):
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Expires" CONTENT="Fri, Jun 12 1981
> 08:20:00 GMT"/>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache"/>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Cache-Control"
> CONTENT="no-cache"/>
> becomes:
> <META content="Fri, Jun 12 1981 08:20:00 GMT"
> http-equiv="Expires">
> <META content="no-cache" http-equiv="Pragma">
> <META content="no-cache" http-equiv="Cache-Control">
>
> (Also the atribute names are written in small letters)
>
> WOULD THIS BE THE REASON THAT SOME BROWSERS/PROXIES
> ARE STILL SERVING THE OLD VERSIONS FROM THEIR CACHING
> AREA?!
>
> Is it possible to change this behaviour of Cocoon
> (Xalan) ???
>
> TIA
> Drasko
>
> --- Robin Green <gr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Reasons:
> >
> > (1) The combination of this change, with the
> > last-modified-header, lets
> > clients and web proxies do some useful caching
> > (apart from just images etc.
> > which they can already cache), taking some load off
> > the server.
> >
> > (2) It would avoid a lot of XSP junk being stored in
> > the Cocoon cache which
> > doesn't need to be there because it is never used. I
> > know personally, that
> > some sites use XSP for almost everything, and a lot
> > of that is not very
> > worth caching, which means a big waste because it is
> > cached anyway! Since
> > some people have reported OutOfMemoryErrors this
> > could be important.
> >
> > >I mean,
> > >this would break each and every XSP page in
> > existence.
> >
> > No it wouldn't. I am proposing caching no dynamic
> > content by default. The
> > pages that aren't designed to be cached, would still
> > work. The pages that
> > are intended to be cached, would still work, but
> > slower because they would
> > not be cached - until the developers realised and
> > explicitly enabled it
> > again. It wouldn't break anything in terms of
> > functionality, apart from
> > caching.
> >
> > >The default should always be the most common usage
> > and not some twisted
> > >case from some twisted workflow :-)
> >
> > Hey this is nothing to do with twisted workflows!
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-users-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: cocoon-users-help@xml.apache.org
>