Personally i dont like an extra param, but something in the name:
/scripts/myscript_1232134323287.js
On 1/17/08, Matt Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matej,
>
> A parameter on the url seems like a small price to pay to guarantee that the
> client has the correct version of the resource (IMHO).
Matej,
A parameter on the url seems like a small price to pay to guarantee that the
client has the correct version of the resource (IMHO). There are other
frameworks which do similar things by default. Is the only reason not to do
it that the url looks a little less clean?
- Matt
p.s. - The gri
I think this would be a reasonable default behavior. Problem is that
it adds another parameter to resource URL, I wasn't sure that people
wouldn't mind, so I better left it disabled by default.
-Matej
On Jan 16, 2008 5:18 PM, Matt Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello I've been using wicket fo
Hello I've been using wicket for almost a year. I recently ran into the
common web problem of the browser being overly aggressive on caching
javascript files. This is commonly solved by adding a query parm which
changes based on the contents of the js file (checksum, time-stamp, etc).
After som
