On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 1:47 PM, cricket wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Brian Sweeney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:47 PM, cricket wrote:
> >>
> >> What the heck is this?!
> >> echo ""; ?>
> >
> > Oh, and
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:47 PM, cricket wrote:
> What the heck is this?!
> echo ""; ?>
>
Oh, and I just wanted to say that I was pretty sure this little snippet
would get that kind of reaction. Nice to know that you care enough to point
out the insanity of it all ;)
--
Our newest site for the
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 2:47 PM, cricket wrote:
> > But yes, this is how I'm passing variables to
> > the view. Except in some of the non-cached code where I'm using
> > requestAction() to get data I need.
>
> But requestAction() is a horrible performance hog so hopefully you'll
> get all of thi
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:49 PM, cricket wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Brian Sweeney
> wrote:
> > I think even though some of the content is state-sensitive the page could
> > still benefit from view caching. It does present some difficulties,
> though,
>
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:11 AM, cricket wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Brian Sweeney
> wrote:
>
> > I have a view that's fairly computationally expensive (lots of
> table-formatted data).
> > To speed up the page load I'm trying to use view ca
Thanks for pondering the issue a bit more. If there's any details you think
might help let me know. I didn't want to bog down the original post with too
much detail, hoping somebody might have run into the problem in the past.
But I don't mind detailing what's going on and how I'm trying to work ar
Thanks for the thoughts. This is what I was planning to try tomorrow.
There's a lot going on in the controller so I figure caching that much would
be better than nothing. I'd still like to get the view cached at some point,
but with all the problems I've been having I'm not sure I'm going to get
th
