On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:45:56 +0100, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
<thiag...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:26:35 -0300, raulmt <rau...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cezary Biernacki wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <
thiag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you set the application version symbol of your
application
to a
> given value and never change it?
Really? It will cause all caching problems that version numbers are
supposed
to solve, will not it?
It would. I thought they wanted fixed URLs. Maybe I'm just not
understanding what the people in this thread want. Some refer to
"current asset". It implies that the previous asset is available, and it
isn't. Maybe they're talking about "current versioned asset *URL*". How
would Tapestry know for sure and in an efficient way that the request
was for an old version asset URL?
Any non-matching version would be redirected?
No, not fixed URLs. We want to take advantage of Tapestry's versioned
assets but still let the application respond to requests for "old" asset
URLs that have been published by previous versions of the application.
Any non-matching version would be redirected?
Yes, that is what I suggested and what Cezary apparently already did.
I believe this should work as long as the redirect is not permanent
or cachable.
If we were to deliver cachable assets (or cachable/permanent redirects)
for a future version that has not existed yet, we could run into problems
once that future version is deployed. Some intermediate proxy could then
have mistakenly cached the 'future' asset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
