Hi Craig,

You are of course right, the bulk of the load is not producing the HTML, and 
the approach that you suggest is the one I will follow.

I guess I'm just suffering from "penis envy", the JSP folks have OSCache and 
the ASP.NET folks also have a great caching service and I wanted some of that 
to :-)

I'm a huge Tapestry fan but sometimes I can identify with the quote that 
someone made a while ago:
"Tapestry makes hard things easy and easy things hard"
Things like caching the response output or changing the response content-type 
shouldn't be so complicated.

Thanks for your input.

Best regards,

Luis Neves


On Monday 04 November 2002 19:02, Craig Miskell wrote:
> Generally speaking (and this may not fit your situation), the expensive
> stuff is database access and related processing of data.  Actually
> chucking it all onto an HTML page is relatively cheap.  Without knowing
> specifics, I'm still fairly confident that you'd get more mileage out of
> simply caching your "Model" objects (create Model per page, and have the
> Tapestry page do nothing much more than suck data from the model.  Some
> ForEach's, Inserts and possibly a few Conditionals will typically do it
> quite nicely).  Then cache the models as appropriate - in the Visit if
> they're session specific, or in some other Application wide cache if
> they're not.
>
> I'd wager this will give you less pain than creating your own Page
> subclass, and ends up with a slightly cleaner design to boot.
>
> Just my $0.02
> Craig
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ApacheCon, November 18-21 in
Las Vegas (supported by COMDEX), the only Apache event to be
fully supported by the ASF. http://www.apachecon.com
_______________________________________________
Tapestry-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer

Reply via email to