[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOM

From: Vlad Harchev
Subject: Re: lynx-dev SOURCE_CACHE "problem" - proposal of SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOMPLETE
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 12:42:16 +0500 (SAMST)

On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Henry Nelson wrote:

> > > >  But I think it would be useful to add a lynx.cfg setting like 
> > > >  SOURCE_CACHE_FOR_INCOMPLETE or something like this - otherwise the 
> > > > change
> > 
> > I'm expecting Henry to speak up for making this (if implemented) a 
> > sub-option
> > of SOURCE_CACHE.  Which would be nicer also I*M*O.
> Yes, a "sub-option" would be much better for reason_s_ stated before.

  I don't understand how new setting would be done as suboption, if we want to
preserve backward compatibility. Please give me hints.
  We can't just allow things like
  - syntax doesn't allow this or will require a very intensive code changes
and will just confuse users more than one additional option
  Also, I wonder - what's the difference for the user between suboption and
new option? We have to document both. 
> > > >  Currently lynx don't cache incomplete document independant of the
> > > > "cache-control" and "expires" headers.
> > 
> > >  Could anybody comment on this?
> FWIW, if so much fine tuning is needed, why not use a REAL caching facility
> instead of hacking the stuff into Lynx?

  First, "hacking the stuff into lynx" will require not more than 15 lines of
code - it's better to write them than to require user to configure "real
caching facility" that can't be controlled so detailed at all probably.
  Second, don't forget about DOS - it's impossible to run squid on the same
machine at the same time. 
> __Henry

 Best regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]