"adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote : Why isn't this just based on the isCachable()
attribute?
Dunno. Probably just some temp hype with super classing everything. :-)
I'll add this, making it true by default.
I think this kind of URI --> VirtualFile code should mostly use this newly added
VFS::getCachedFile method.
Unless you're really sure you need to create new VFSContext (that's what
VFS::getRoot does)
or you're absolutely sure this resource is not cached, hence introducing performance
impact, you should use the old way.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4186696#...
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...