[opencms-dev] Publishing problems

[Gerhard]

Hi Fabian,

ah seems to be complicated :-)

So, where can I find this static logic? (Not sure if you mentioned already)

Cheers,
Gerhard

Am 02.09.2014 11:48, schrieb fhsubscriptions at componio.net:
> Hi Gerhard,
>
> again - hard to tell :-)
>
> If A is the root node and the static logic from the provider does not
> check if B is related to A then yes, you would have to publish both.
> However this is very simple to verify:
>
> Create a template A which outputs the current time and create a JSP B
> which is included by the template A (via the tag <cms:include />) which
> also outputs the current time.
> Publish both, request template A and both time stamps should be
> identically.
> Then change template B and publish again.
>
> Depending on how the static logic from your provider works you will most
> likely have one of the following results when calling template A again:
>
> - timestamp A = timestamp B = the timestamp from the first template call
> (Logic did not detect a change)
> - timestamp A = timestamp B = the current timestamp (Logic detected
> change and recompiled template)
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> \Fabian
>
>
> Am 02.09.2014 10:24, schrieb Gerhard:
>> Hi Fabian,
>>
>> does that mean that when I have a file A which uses a file B that I
>> always have to republish A manually when B changes?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gerhard
>>
>> Am 27.08.2014 15:25, schrieb fhsubscriptions at componio.net:
>>> Hi Gerhard,
>>>
>>> without knowing the infrastructure hard to tell. My best guess would be
>>> that the service provider accesses directly OpenCms whereas you access
>>> the statically "cached" version.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> \Fabian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 27.08.2014 14:19, schrieb Gerhard:
>>>> Hi Fabian,
>>>>
>>>> the URLs contain no ../export/..  :-/
>>>>
>>>> Our service provider for the servers on which OpenCMS is running spoke
>>>> about "statification" yesterday which sounded pretty much like a
>>>> static export. That would explain the fact that we get old pages as
>>>> long as we don't republish the content. But one thing is weird: When
>>>> the people at the service provider open the pages, they don't have any
>>>> problems at all, the most current version is loaded. And when I open
>>>> the very same page _after that_ I get the correct page too! Do you
>>>> have any idea how this can happen?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Gerhard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>