[opencms-dev] Cache problem with cms:include

[Tobias Karrer]

Tobias Herrmann <t.herrmann <at> alkacon.com> writes:

> 
> Hi Tobias,
> 
> you need to use the cache setting "cache=uri;user;no-params;" for includes 
with any user specific
> output. This part has not changed since version 7.5.x, I wonder why it 
worked before.
> 
> Greetings, Tobias
> 
> --
> 
> Alkacon Software GmbH - The OpenCms Experts
> 
> http://www.alkacon.com
> http://www.opencms.org
> 
> Am 04.07.2013 18:55, schrieb Tobias Karrer:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > we got a flex cache problem after updating vrom 7.5.4 to 8.0.4:
> >
> > Out page templates have the cache setting "cache=uri;no-params;".
> > Since the name of the logged in user is printed out in the page, we 
included this part with a dynamic include
> "cms:include"; cache setting "cache=never".
> >
> > Works fine with 7.5.4 - the user part always was included dynamically, 
while the rest of the page was
> delivered from the flex cache.
> > After updating to 8.0.4 everything is delivered from the flex cache - 
users may see a wrong username in the
> page. We needed to disable the flex cache.
> >
> > What's the solution?
> > Do we need to change cache settings for OpenCms 8.0.4 (we are not using 
ADE)?
> >
> > Best,
> > Tobias
> > _______________________________________________
> > This mail is sent to you from the opencms-dev mailing list
> > To change your list options, or to unsubscribe from the list, please 
visit
> > http://lists.opencms.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opencms-dev
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> This mail is sent to you from the opencms-dev mailing list
> To change your list options, or to unsubscribe from the list, please visit
> http://lists.opencms.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opencms-dev
> 
> 


What about the attribute "cacheable" of the cms:include-Tag?

So far we used cms:include to include parts of a page which mustn't be 
cached... worked very well with 7.5.4.

If this isn't working any more it's preferable to use static includes, 
because they're much more faster.

Or what to do to exclude parts of a page from caching?

Regards,
Tobias