Re: Firesite cache vs webcat cache

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

1997


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 15278
interpreted = N
texte = >>I was thinking of taking the firesite cache setting and changing >>it to zero and let webcatalog do it all. > >This is not a good idea, because FireSite makes lots of changes to >the document after WebCatalog hands off the HTML to it. Really you >want both. > >WebCatalog Cache: speeds up things like [include] and any template >processing, because WebCatalog won't have to go to disk to open >those files. > >FireSite Cache: speeds up links to URLs that FireSite deems are >identical, so it won't have to ask WebCatalog to process pages that >it's already done Grant, it doesn't seem like FireSite can use the creation date/time of a WebCat-rendered page when making its decision to re-render or to NOT re-render a previously-rendered page ...... so does FireSite make this decision by comparing the entire HTML of each page it gets from WebCat -- to see if that exact HTML has already been rendered by FireSite?Because if this is what FireSite does, then it would make sense to use as large a FireSite cache as possible ... right?Sincerely, Ken Grome WebDNA Solutions http://www.smithmicro.com/webdnasolutions/... Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Firesite cache vs webcat cache (grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter) 1997)
  2. Re: Firesite cache vs webcat cache (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  3. Re: Firesite cache vs webcat cache (grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter) 1997)
  4. Re: Firesite cache vs webcat cache (Kenneth Grome 1997)
  5. Re: Firesite cache vs webcat cache (Grant Hulbert 1997)
  6. Firesite cache vs webcat cache (grichter@panavise.com (Gary Richter) 1997)
>>I was thinking of taking the firesite cache setting and changing >>it to zero and let webcatalog do it all. > >This is not a good idea, because FireSite makes lots of changes to >the document after WebCatalog hands off the HTML to it. Really you >want both. > >WebCatalog Cache: speeds up things like [include] and any template >processing, because WebCatalog won't have to go to disk to open >those files. > >FireSite Cache: speeds up links to URLs that FireSite deems are >identical, so it won't have to ask WebCatalog to process pages that >it's already done Grant, it doesn't seem like FireSite can use the creation date/time of a WebCat-rendered page when making its decision to re-render or to NOT re-render a previously-rendered page ...... so does FireSite make this decision by comparing the entire HTML of each page it gets from WebCat -- to see if that exact HTML has already been rendered by FireSite?Because if this is what FireSite does, then it would make sense to use as large a FireSite cache as possible ... right?Sincerely, Ken Grome WebDNA Solutions http://www.smithmicro.com/webdnasolutions/... Kenneth Grome

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

Dates (1996) Install problems on 3.08 (2000) WebCat2.0 acgi vs plugin (1997) There's a bug in the math context ... (1997) [ConvertChars] problem (1997) date (2002) WebDNA 5 & iTools 7 (2003) WebMerchant 1.6 and https (1997) Multiple fields on 1 input (1997) SHOWIF/HIDEIF empty fields (2005) [WebDNA] WebDNA code displaying on page (2012) shipcost (1997) [LOOKUP] (1997) 4.0 Plugin under Webten (2000) WC2f3 (1997) texta,b,c,d,e (urgent) (2003) Sorting LISTFILES (1997) [WebDNA] sem_open solved (2012) all records returned. (1997) OK, here goes... (1997)