Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 04:33:45 -0700 From: Graeme Tait <U@webcom.com> To: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG>, isp@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: info@boatbooks.com Subject: Re: Anyone running FrontPage with Apache on stable/current? Message-ID: <35EE7E99.298E@webcom.com> References: <10090.904796602@gjp.erols.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gary Palmer wrote: > > Bill Fumerola wrote in message ID > <Pine.HPP.3.96.980901150646.9792A-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com>: > > Three words: Active Server Pages, try them in *nix. > > ASPs should be discouraged at any rate. They are not cachable content. Perhaps > M$ likes having more traffic to their web servers than they really need, but > as an ISP I'd rather keep the traffic local... I have never understood why this needs to be (that the content is not cacheable). For content that is quasi-static, why could not the ASP pages be served so as to be cacheable? Perhaps pages could be served with an expiry date (or last modified date) set from a database field on a per-page basis. This could also allow a intelligent response to if-modified-since requests that would avoid the need to transfer content unnecessarily. We have an application where a very large number of HTML pages are presently generated offline from a database every month and uploaded. I want to change this to a system where the database itself is uploaded monthly, and the pages generated on the fly. But it is essential that the pages appear static, and be listable by search engines. In the majority of pages, the content changes relatively little - it is rather details like pricing that change frequently. Any suggestions? -- Graeme Tait - Echidna To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35EE7E99.298E>