Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
The cache was turned off also in DEVELOPMENT mode intentionally.
You have at least 3 ways of achieving the same results:
1) If JMX is enabled you can trigger cache and/or model update through jconsole
2) Set the cacheUpdatePeriod and/or modelUpdatePeriod to 5 seconds in your
web.xml (@see http://code.google.com/p/wro4j/wiki/GettingStarted)
3) Trigger cache and/or model update through HTTP with a simple GET request:
a) for cache update - /wro/wroAPI/reloadCache
b) for model update - /wro/wroAPI/reloadModel
These requests will be processed only in DEVELOPMENT mode.
I'll mark this issue as WON'T FIX, but if you do not agree or have other
suggersions, please let me know.
Original comment by alex.obj...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2011 at 7:54
Original comment by alex.obj...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2011 at 7:54
I have an idea which would help to disable cache in development mode. An issue
for this purpose has been created:
http://code.google.com/p/wro4j/issues/detail?id=166
Original comment by alex.obj...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2011 at 9:26
I think you probably should send "no-cache" headers to the browser in
development mode, and maybe no matter what cache lifetime is
specified. It turned out that cache lifetime of 1 second would be
short enough for comfort development of CSS and JS, but cache headers
make browsers to not refresh their cache on F5 and causes the coder to
wait up to several minutes while the browser cache is refreshed, which
is pain when you fine-tune your css or js and have to switch from IDE
to browser very often
Original comment by eum...@gmail.com
on 25 Jan 2011 at 4:32
That shouldn't be a problem, because besides the no-cache header, the server
sends ETag header containing a digested hash of the content. That means, that
if the serverside cache is disabled and you've changed some js or css, the ETag
will differ and it will force browser to get the latest version.
Anyway, I'll update the cache headers for DEVELOPMENT mode because it does make
sense.
Original comment by alex.obj...@gmail.com
on 25 Jan 2011 at 10:24
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
eum...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2011 at 6:09