Geoffrey Talvola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Ian Bicking wrote: > > > > If caching wasn't done in the factory, I think it should be. I think > > that just means we have to have a method to return the servlet to the > > factory, and then the factory can keep a pool of servlets. > > I agree -- the caching belongs in the factory, not in Application.
I know that this is "done and dusted" already, but I also think that this is a great idea. You may have seen a patch I submitted which attempts to allow Webware contexts to have "virtual resources" in much the same way that mod_python doesn't care what the requested resource is called as long as the extension is the one mapped to the specified mod_python handler. My patch does an inelegant workaround with respect to caching, and it also has to suppress the insistence that real files exist for every requested resource - something which certainly is useful in many situations (eg. checking modified times against active servlets), but is obstructive or unnecessary in other situations (eg. "virtual resources"). Especially in the light of the PyWeb stuff that Ian is particularly involved with, I believe that generalising/simplifying/refactoring the caching and servlet "discovery" code is important. Certainly, making Webware and mod_python's behaviour similar (and to the benefit of Webware) is a good thing. Anyway, Webware 0.9 (or 1.0?) is looking promising, especially if my dodgy patches no longer need applying. Paul ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Webware-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-devel
