 | | Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
Is there a better (any other?) way to force a page not to be cached but instead fetched from the server every time, other than using the META EXPIRES tag at the top of the page. That's the only way I found and am interested to learn if there are (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) IIRC, there is a pragma no-cache that you can add to the HTTP headers. --Todd (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
In the header of the page add: <META HTTP-EQUIV="PRAGMA" CONTENT="NO-CACHE"> This tag also keeps pages from being cached by proxy servers... (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Some browsers (I don't remember which ones, sorry) don't respect this. It's best to combine this with the expires header, I think. :( (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Here's what I do to guarantee no caching: void printCGIheader(){ printf("Content-type: text/html\n"); printf("Expires: 0\n"); printf("Cache-control: no-cache\n"); printf("Pragma: no-cache\n"); printf("\n"); } void printCookieHeader(char (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) I read somewhere that not all proxy caches will observe this. Actually I think it said they only look at the actual headers, not HTTP-EQUIV. It doesn't hurt to cover all bases. See my other post for details. KL (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Wicked excellent. I'm going to try that. So the cookie rationale there is to avoid having cookies accidentally set twice, yes? In case one of the caching entities isn't smart enough to automatically not cache pages containing set-cookie (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) <Ctrl> reload works for me. (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) That's a keystroke, right? A process runs to generate these pages quite frequently. We want the user to see the most freshly generated page without the user having to take any action of their own. So we want to put tags into the page to tell (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) EXPIRES (...) Just a clarification, my example was for direct writing of HTTP headers, as you must do in a CGI. I suppose those tags would work as META HTTP-EQUIV tags in a web page, but I'm not sure if all proxy caches look at http-equivs, (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) BTW, the reason I *had* to figure out how to do this is because after uploading a file, the server spits out a javascript redirect (this.replace ...) to the folder url the uploaded to. If that page was cached, the user would see the cached (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what you mean by cookies being set twice. The two functions above are used for non-logged in state and logged-in state respectively. Every page access while logged in causes the cookie to be set (notice they are not (...) (24 years ago, 9-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Right, but telling your viewers to do that every time isn't a very viable option. (24 years ago, 10-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Why not? A simple phrase: Press <Ctrl> and click on "Reload". Why is that not viable? Why is that less viable than any of lots of other keystroke mouse combinations? No offense, but give your users some credit! (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) EXPIRES (...) Is its just me, or are you guys making this much too difficult? Or are you thinking your users can't handle the keystroke? Any user that can <Ctrl><Alt><Delete> to reboot can easily function with <Ctrl> and click on "Reload" Just (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Why should they have to do anything? Computers are supposed to make things easier. Telling people that they need to press some seemingly-arcane (to a new user) key combo isn't good user-interace design. (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) ...<smile> I think their point is that the user should be always up-to-date, even without knowing it; and without having to realize the page is outdated and reloading. At home I have the page reload every time, but here I can't control (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) And thank you for it. However in this case, it's a customer requirement that the user, in the ordinary course of events, *never see* the old page. Yes, a clever user can go schlepping around in their cache, and that's OK, but the ordinary user (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
