file RFE On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Stefan Simik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I looked at it in detail, and it works as following: > > 1. You are right, when caching is too low - then browser makes request, > with > header > If-Modified-Since. Response is 304 - that it was not modified. So the > whole resource > is not really downloaded, it is requested only, with short 304 response. > > 2. When caching time is longer, then: > if resource is in caching time interval, then it is immediately taken > from browser cache, > without sending a request with If-Modified-Since. So the request is not > performed, until > caching time expires. > > So the overhead is not so big. Some complex applications > may use many css and javascript files, and it is wasting of time for > requesting these never > changing files every hour again and again. > > Also, solution is very simple, elegant and breaks no API. And the resulting > performance will > be slightly better. > It would be good, to have a possibility to cache these never changing > static > resources for > a specified time, to prevent these needless requests. > > The only thing, that is needed to do for it, is to change > WebResource#setHeaders() to take > the caching time from some settings, so it is not hardcoded and can be > configured by developer. > > What do you think about it - should I create a RFE, or it is ok ? > > Stefan Simik > > > > > > > > > > > Johan Compagner wrote: > > > > But is it then really downloaded? > > Because the brower makes first a head request to it and that will say > > not changed > > > > On 5/8/08, Stefan Simik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi boys, > >> > >> I think, there is one problem with wicket ajax javascripts - there are > >> reloading by browser every > >> hour, because the Expire header is hardcoded to 3600 seconds in > >> WebResource#setHeaders() method. > >> > >> It is really needed to repeatedly once an hour download these wicket > >> javascripts ? > >> These are static wicket javascripts, they are not subject of changes, so > >> why could they not be cached for longer time, for example - 1 week, or > >> longer. > >> > >> It would be better, if caching time should be configurable from some > >> application settings. > >> Could I create requet for improvement, or it is all ok ? > >> > >> thx > >> Stefan Simik > >> > >> // > >> I have consulted this before, but without result. So now, I am trying to > >> show > >> the problem in a simpler situation. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-javascripts---reloading-every-one-hour-tp17117009p17117009.html > >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-javascripts---reloading-every-one-hour-tp17117009p17125087.html > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
