|
|
Posted by Rik on 05/16/06 01:16
robert wrote:
>> I also don't really see the point of denying caching. Why not give
>> it a filename according to size (like
>> 'thumb-h200-w200-'.$imagename), and let the users cache all they
>> want? The images themself aren't changed that often I believe...
>
> don't deny it...just deny martin's ability to demonstrate caching in a
> manner that would show it as preferable - specifically when making
> the case of server load comparasons.
I wasn't talking about "caching" thumbnails on the harddrive of the server
itself, but:
> header('expires:
);
> header('cache-control: private',
);
> header('cache-control: must-revalidate, post-check=0,
ck=0' );
I'll have to dive more into caching mechanisms, certainly when concerning
the more dynamic links like "thumb.php?img=something.jpg&width=200", but I'd
say: let the user cache away where apropriate. In this particular case I
think it is.
>>> then again, i could care less what you recommend as it seems your
>>> feet aren't firmly planted in reality and your head doesn't
>>> interpret practicality...plus, at the end of the day, only one of
>>> us is
>>> bringing home a paycheck. ;^)
>>
>> Now, behave :-).
>
> really rik, i'm truly roflmao with that! thanks...needed the chuckle.
> ;^)
Glad to be of service.
--
Rik Wasmus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|