«

Hello,

Does anyone have any idea how Gmail does this? I have a web application

and people complain sometimes about some problems and most of the time
it turns out it's the browser's cache being full. The application
doesn't do anything really fancy and all it does is to set a cookie. I
did a search and couldn't find anything except people explainin how I
shouldn't do that. Even if the users have to add the server to the
trusted zone it's ok because it's an intranet application. btw. I'm
speaking of a MS shop, so everyone is using IE if that matters. Even if

Mozilla doesn't support that functionality or doesn't have any problems

with it - I don't care at this point because my users are using IE
99.9999% of the time and searching for bugs on places where they don't
exist is wasting my time.

Thanks,
Nick

wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Does anyone have any idea how Gmail does this? I have a web application
>
> and people complain sometimes about some problems and most of the time
> it turns out it's the browser's cache being full.

What?
What on Earth makes you think that 'problems' are caused by browsers cache
that is full?
I do not believe that explanation at all.
Back up that claim with some proof.


The application
> doesn't do anything really fancy and all it does is to set a cookie. I
> did a search and couldn't find anything except people explainin how I
> shouldn't do that. Even if the users have to add the server to the
> trusted zone it's ok because it's an intranet application. btw. I'm
> speaking of a MS shop, so everyone is using IE if that matters. Even if
>
> Mozilla doesn't support that functionality or doesn't have any problems
>
> with it - I don't care at this point because my users are using IE
> 99.9999% of the time and searching for bugs on places where they don't
> exist is wasting my time.

So why should I care and help you?
I am that 0.00001% that uses Firefox.

Like your first story: I do not believe this either.

You know-it-all attitude doesn't reflect your actual knowledge.

Regards,
Erwin Moller

>
> Thanks,
> Nick

Erwin Moller wrote:
I'm
> > speaking of a MS shop, so everyone is using IE if that matters. Even if
> >
> > Mozilla doesn't support that functionality or doesn't have any problems
> >
> > with it - I don't care at this point because my users are using IE
> > 99.9999% of the time and searching for bugs on places where they don't
> > exist is wasting my time.
>
> So why should I care and help you?
> I am that 0.00001% that uses Firefox.
>

You're one of his users? What an amazing coincidence.

To the OP: Sorry, I don't know how to help you, but I hope someone can
without being a snob! Good luck.
-A faithful firefox users who doesn't work for you.

Jessica Parker wrote:
> -A faithful firefox users who doesn't work for you.

Erg...*with* you.

Erwin Moller wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>Does anyone have any idea how Gmail does this? I have a web application
>>
>>and people complain sometimes about some problems and most of the time
>>it turns out it's the browser's cache being full.
>
>
> What?
> What on Earth makes you think that 'problems' are caused by browsers cache
> that is full?
> I do not believe that explanation at all.
> Back up that claim with some proof.
>
Interesting aside, I was unable to login to my online banking account
the other day. When I called the bank, the first thing they asked was
"are you using Firefox?", when I said yes, the response was "your cache
is full, clear the cache and restart". This cleared the problem.

Unfortunately the help desk person was unable to explain why the problem
occurs.

--
Ian Collins.

Ian Collins wrote:
> Erwin Moller wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>Does anyone have any idea how Gmail does this? I have a web application
> >>
> >>and people complain sometimes about some problems and most of the time
> >>it turns out it's the browser's cache being full.
> >
> >
> > What?
> > What on Earth makes you think that 'problems' are caused by browsers cache
> > that is full?
> > I do not believe that explanation at all.
> > Back up that claim with some proof.
> >
> Interesting aside, I was unable to login to my online banking account
> the other day. When I called the bank, the first thing they asked was
> "are you using Firefox?", when I said yes, the response was "your cache
> is full, clear the cache and restart". This cleared the problem.
>
> Unfortunately the help desk person was unable to explain why the problem
> occurs.
>
> --
> Ian Collins.

All browsers have cache...

There is a meta tag to tell the browser NOT to cache a page.
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Expires" CONTENT="-1"> (Add this second line for IE).

Not sure if this would help with the original problem, but it took me
two seconds to find on google.

Jessica Parker said the following on 6/11/2006 11:02 PM:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Erwin Moller wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any idea how Gmail does this? I have a web application
>>>>
>>>> and people complain sometimes about some problems and most of the time
>>>> it turns out it's the browser's cache being full.
>>>
>>> What?
>>> What on Earth makes you think that 'problems' are caused by browsers cache
>>> that is full?
>>> I do not believe that explanation at all.
>>> Back up that claim with some proof.
>>>
>> Interesting aside, I was unable to login to my online banking account
>> the other day. When I called the bank, the first thing they asked was
>> "are you using Firefox?", when I said yes, the response was "your cache
>> is full, clear the cache and restart". This cleared the problem.
>>
>> Unfortunately the help desk person was unable to explain why the problem
>> occurs.
>>
>> --
>> Ian Collins.
>
> All browsers have cache...
>
> There is a meta tag to tell the browser NOT to cache a page.
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Expires" CONTENT="-1"> (Add this second line for IE).
>
> Not sure if this would help with the original problem, but it took me
> two seconds to find on google.

How long did it take you to find the explanation of why those two meta
tags are useless and futile to use?

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

Randy Webb wrote:
> Jessica Parker said the following on 6/11/2006 11:02 PM:
> > Ian Collins wrote:
> >> Erwin Moller wrote:
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> Does anyone have any idea how Gmail does this? I have a web application
> >>>>
> >>>> and people complain sometimes about some problems and most of the time
> >>>> it turns out it's the browser's cache being full.
> >>>
> >>> What?
> >>> What on Earth makes you think that 'problems' are caused by browsers cache
> >>> that is full?
> >>> I do not believe that explanation at all.
> >>> Back up that claim with some proof.
> >>>
> >> Interesting aside, I was unable to login to my online banking account
> >> the other day. When I called the bank, the first thing they asked was
> >> "are you using Firefox?", when I said yes, the response was "your cache
> >> is full, clear the cache and restart". This cleared the problem.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately the help desk person was unable to explain why the problem
> >> occurs.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ian Collins.
> >
> > All browsers have cache...
> >
> > There is a meta tag to tell the browser NOT to cache a page.
> > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">
> > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Expires" CONTENT="-1"> (Add this second line for IE).
> >
> > Not sure if this would help with the original problem, but it took me
> > two seconds to find on google.
>
> How long did it take you to find the explanation of why those two meta
> tags are useless and futile to use?
>
> --
> Randy
> comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
> Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

Apparently I was wrong - the snobs are out in full blast eh?

Jessica Parker wrote:

> > > [...]
> > > There is a meta tag to tell the browser NOT to cache a page.
> > > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Pragma" CONTENT="no-cache">
> > > <META HTTP-EQUIV="Expires" CONTENT="-1"> (Add this second line for IE).
>
> Apparently I was wrong -

Yes you are. And even if you were right, you forgot:

<META HTTP-EQUIV="cache-control" CONTENT="no-cache">

--
Bart

Jim Carlock said the following on 6/12/2006 7:54 PM:
> Randy Webb wrote:
>> How long did it take you to find the explanation of why
>> those two meta tags are useless and futile to use?
>
> I'm interested in hearing what others have to say about
> why it's useless and what makes it useless.

The fact that it depends on a UA honoring something that it isn't
required to honor at all.

> Am I correct in leaning into the meta pragma cache tags as
> something for proxy servers?

Probably so, who knows. It became abused by people when they noticed
that sometimes the browser/UA would honor it and didn't care if the UA
didn't honor it. Then it became mythical to use it.

> Search engines don't seem to honor those tags, so they don't seem
> to apply to search engines, although they might provide a hint on
> how many times the spiders should visit. <g>

My browser doesn't honor it either <g>

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/