You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> on 2006/04/01 09:24:52 UTC
Re: CachingSource
Jeremy Quinn wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2006, at 13:08, Max Pfingsthorn wrote:
>
>> Core would be best as it is very general and all the cache related
>> things are there as well.
>> I can do it today, but what about the codefreeze?
>
> Whoops, bad timing .... Carsten, WDYT ?
>
Good question :) I think we should refrain from moving code during the
code freeze, because it's difficult to draw the line between what is ok
to be moved and what not. So the best solution is to not move things.
Sorry, about that- what do others think?
But the good part is that the code is in the release - it doesn't really
matter where it is as long as it is available :)
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Re: CachingSource
Posted by Reinhard Poetz <re...@apache.org>.
Jeremy Quinn wrote:
>
> On 3 Apr 2006, at 23:09, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
>
>> On 01.04.2006 13:09, Jeremy Quinn wrote:
>>
>>>> But the good part is that the code is in the release - it doesn't
>>>> really
>>>> matter where it is as long as it is available :)
>>>
>>> I am not entirely sure that the code is in the Branch_2_1_X any more.
>>
>>
>> AFAIR there is no longer a scratchpad block in the branch.
>
>
> I guess it disappeared with the scratchpad, but there is another way of
> doing the same thing (as usual) ....
>
> I am using an expiring pipeline :
>
> <map:pipe
> name="expires300"
>
> src="org.apache.cocoon.components.pipeline.impl.ExpiresCachingProcessing
> Pipeline">
> <parameter name="cache-expires" value="300"/> <!-- Expires in
> secondes -->
> </map:pipe>
>
> Does exactly what is says on the label :)
IIUC it's not as powerful because the caching source can be configured to be
updated by a seperated thread in the background.
--
Reinhard Pötz Independent Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}
web(log): http://www.poetz.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
Re: CachingSource
Posted by Jeremy Quinn <je...@apache.org>.
On 3 Apr 2006, at 23:09, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> On 01.04.2006 13:09, Jeremy Quinn wrote:
>
>>> But the good part is that the code is in the release - it doesn't
>>> really
>>> matter where it is as long as it is available :)
>> I am not entirely sure that the code is in the Branch_2_1_X any more.
>
> AFAIR there is no longer a scratchpad block in the branch.
I guess it disappeared with the scratchpad, but there is another way
of doing the same thing (as usual) ....
I am using an expiring pipeline :
<map:pipe
name="expires300"
src="org.apache.cocoon.components.pipeline.impl.ExpiresCachingProcessing
Pipeline">
<parameter name="cache-expires" value="300"/> <!-- Expires in
secondes -->
</map:pipe>
Does exactly what is says on the label :)
regards Jeremy
Re: CachingSource
Posted by Joerg Heinicke <jo...@gmx.de>.
On 01.04.2006 13:09, Jeremy Quinn wrote:
>> But the good part is that the code is in the release - it doesn't really
>> matter where it is as long as it is available :)
>
> I am not entirely sure that the code is in the Branch_2_1_X any more.
AFAIR there is no longer a scratchpad block in the branch.
Jörg
Re: CachingSource
Posted by Jeremy Quinn <je...@apache.org>.
Hi Carsten
On 1 Apr 2006, at 08:24, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Jeremy Quinn wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2006, at 13:08, Max Pfingsthorn wrote:
>>
>>> Core would be best as it is very general and all the cache related
>>> things are there as well.
>>> I can do it today, but what about the codefreeze?
>>
>> Whoops, bad timing .... Carsten, WDYT ?
>>
> Good question :) I think we should refrain from moving code during the
> code freeze, because it's difficult to draw the line between what
> is ok
> to be moved and what not. So the best solution is to not move things.
> Sorry, about that- what do others think?
OK
> But the good part is that the code is in the release - it doesn't
> really
> matter where it is as long as it is available :)
I am not entirely sure that the code is in the Branch_2_1_X any more.
regards Jeremy