caching-patch V0.2.1 (Was: Re: caching-patch V0.2.0)

[Waldo Bastian]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 27 August 2002 08:36 am, Tobias Anton wrote:
> If you read it carefully, you'd notice that the patch will not cause an
> expire date be lowered by KHTML. Only raising the page's expire timeout
> takes place. Only if necessary and only if possible.

So if a page sets a timeout of 2 seconds that is basically ignored for the 
images then because the expire date reported by http will very likely be 
larger than that. Which makes me wonder why you propagate expire times at all 
then.

====

Can you explain this change in your patch:
- -    return (difftime(now, m_expireDate) >= 0);
+    return (difftime(getAbsoluteExpireDate(), now) >= 0);

====

On Tuesday 27 August 2002 08:36 am, you write:
> I still think that
> t_img_expire = t_img_create + t_doc_expire
> makes more sense:
>
> Given a page and its images are not cached, the images are loaded seconds
> after the page, so that t_img_create will only be a bit larger than
> t_doc_create.
> This is good for the caching functionality, because if a page is loaded
> again (but from cache) shortly before its expire date is reached, the
> images in that page are less likely to be reloaded because they are expired
> in between.

But on Monday 26 August 2002 07:36 am, you wrote:
> > I think that's wrong and I think the images should expire on
> > t_doc_create+t_doc_expire.
>
> Imagine a cached image that is referenced from all pages of a web site and
> all pages have a relative expire date.
>
> Browsing around will lead to strange results there, i.e. as long as no page
> is visited twice and the time between two page views is less than the
> (relative) expire time, such an image will never be reloaded.

So yesterday you say "using t_doc_create is bad because the images will never 
be reloaded" and today you say "using t_img_create is good because the images 
will never be reloaded".

Cheers,
Waldo
- -- 
bastian at kde.org  |   SuSE Labs KDE Developer  |  bastian at suse.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE9a8izN4pvrENfboIRAi/fAJ4oRJdts9+OMFcxuaa5wr5HhtqcBgCdHiUY
7EUIgzKoD3Cv5lgC4BQFtn4=
=xIg9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----