"Leslie P. Polzer" <[email protected]> writes: >> More fundamentally, though, I believe weblocks session handling needs to >> be reworked, at least for my needs. I don't want to establish sessions >> for every request, that's wasteful. > > Although probably not that serious.
It would need to be measured. I have suspicions that building widget trees on every request is expensive, especially as one usually makes database calls when building widgets. And in case of a bounce request or a bot request all that stuff sits around in memory until the session gets expired. >> This might have the added advantage of significantly speeding up >> weblocks: you would not have to build the whole widget tree on every >> request. My lazy-navigation does something similar to a certain extent, >> but we could take it much farther. > > IMO lazy-navigation misses an important feature. MAKE-LAZY-NAVIGATION > should be a macro that creates closures of its widget arguments to > build widgets as necessary. lazy-navigation was just a quick hack, something I noticed I could do without much effort -- so I did it. It can definitely be improved upon. > More on-topic again then how about this two-step plan: > > 1. Disable session URI rewrite and prune annoying redirects. > 2. Introduce session-less widget trees. Sounds good. My problem with (1) is that I don't understand why there are three calls to redirect in handle-client-request and what purpose they serve. --J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
