Graham Leggett wrote: > On Fri, October 27, 2006 6:25 pm, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: > >> I would have been most happy if this had been fixed ages ago so I >> hadn't been forced to spend lots and lots of hours kludging stuff >> togehter. At least, my kludges seem to have sparked some development >> in this area, so they have served some purpose other than enabling a >> non-profit computer club building a FTP/HTTP server that actually >> works. > > When Brian Atkins stood up at Apachecon and presented a talk pretty much > summarised as "we don't use Apache's cache because it sucked, and here's > why", that was a wake up call to realise that the disk cache in its > current form sucks. > > We have significant contributions from two people - Davi Arnaut and Niklas > Edmundsson, and I've been integrating the issues fixed by both these > contributions into a coherent workable whole, so that the effort spent by > these people isn't wasted. Both of their efforts have focused on different > aspects of the cache, making this workable. Some parts are not RFC > compliant, other parts are not implemented elegantly enough, but these are > details that need to be raised, addressed and fixed, not used as a feeble > excuse to abandon the effort and return to some cache code that nobody > wants to use.
I particularly don't care if my patches are not used if a better solution cames up. It takes time for ideas to "maturate". > I see lots of comments on the code, but the comments are summarised as > "the cache is fine as it is". It isn't. If it was fine, key users of > network caching wouldn't be standing up saying they're using something > else. No one said that, but we must think before acting. -- Davi Arnaut
