On 12/21/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the early days of Django, Adrian, Simon et al looked at that. It > wasn't worth it, since, in the grand scheme of things, template caching > and checking the cache wasn't that much faster than loading and parsing, > particularly in the overall response time of a request (of which > template parsing is a relatively small component). Adding complexity for > minimal gain isn't usually a good idea. Unless this is a universal win, > it would be better to write it as a third-party template loader. It's > fairly easy to write a template loader that takes another template > loader as a parameter and just wraps caching around it and that keeps > the core code cleaner.
I wonder if the template system has become a bit more complex since then. I also wonder if whatever tests they used included things like includes in for loops. I tend to think that the filesystem is slow and anything to remove FS calls and shove things in memory is a good thing -- especially something that could potentially be in a for loop. Obviously there are trade-offs as you mention but the patch didn't look that complex to me -- actually it was surprisingly straight forward. I've considered applying this patch and testing against a project I'm working on. Maybe that would help prove to either Django or me that this is or isn't worth it. Thanks, -Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
