On Jul 27, 2009, at 4:34 PM, David A. Desrosiers wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Marcello Perathoner<marcello@perathoner.de> wrote:
That seems an horrible waste of resources seeing that you only need to scan the rdf file to see what files we have.
Scanning the RDF file tells me absolutely nothing about the availability of the actual target format itself. Checking HEAD on each target link does, however. Since I'm caching it on the server-side, I only have to remotely check it the first time, which is not a "horrible waste of resources" at all.
My, can't we admit that XPath is a bit over our head, so we prefer confronting the admin we're supposed to be cooperating with? Wrt resources, my guess it's about par traffic-wise (1-5k per book vs. megabytes of RDF) but much better CPU-wise. That is, if you don't want the RDF for other fine things like metadata etc. ralf