There are *two* separate unrelated problems here. In my view,
neither is less important than the other.Gili On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:21:26 +0100, Eelco Hillenius wrote: >The real problem here is not the actual server side caching, but the >browser caching. The browser should mark the images as cacheable, so >that it won't be requesting them all the time. > >Eelco > >Gili wrote: > >> I don't understand. Why is using "tempdir" not a long-term >>solution? I see no contradiction between using a tempdir and being able >>"to return images that get cached". You seem to be concerned about >>client-side caching, while I am talking about server-side caching. My >>point is that even if two different browsers hit the same Page, it >>shouldn't regenerate the dynamic image if it doesn't need to -- >>regardless of whether the client has the image cached or not. >> >>Gili >> >>On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:52:50 -0800 (PST), Jonathan Locke wrote: >> >> >> > > >------------------------------------------------------- >The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues >Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. >It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt >_______________________________________________ >Wicket-develop mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop > ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
