Gili wrote:
Sorry, I am not so familiar with Apache and other static servers. Please help me understand.
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 01:04:07 +0100, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Problems still:
1. Those images would only be available through Wicket, as they are components. As they are components, the HTML looks like this:
<img src="/wicket-examples/images?component=1.image2&rendering=0&interface=IResourceListener" id ="image2">
'1.image2' means component with name 'image2' of the page in the session with nbr 1. The 1. changes here. And even if you have similar images, they would be named different ('imageX) as they are separate components.
'rendering=0' also changes ('rendering=n-1') to keep track of stale pages.
I don't see why the session number should be part of the URL.
Static packed images do not depend on a session. Also, I don't
understand the rendering flag. You mention it keeps track of stale
pages but I don't understand how.
Because those packaged resources are components. That's the way Wicket works. And that's really fine for the first request. But in this request we should check whether a resource is cacheable, and if it is, do some magic to make this happen.
I do not have time for trying to implement this (and thus making a proposal), but I think I know a general way how to solve this elegantly and I will try it this weekend.
2. Even if we built files, and did our trick of converting the references to 'static' url's, we still aren't there yet as we can't assume we are allowed to directly write to our webapp dir (which would make our resources instantly available as a static resource). We can, as Johan and you pointed out, write to a temporary directory. However, putting resources in this directory will not have those resources available to the webserver as static resources. So, in that case we should either do extra administration on the webserver (an that's not an option for a framework like this) or, we should provide a means to access this, like making this a special case and handle it seperately by our Wicket servlet (thus it is not a component).
That could be the starting point I think.
I don't see why the webserver cannot have access to the
tmpdir..?
It's just not how these beasts work in general. And though you can setup a webserver to have access to the temp dir, it would be hard to find a (enterpise level) hosting party that wants to support this.
Eelco
Gili
-------------------------------------------------------
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
