[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: > > > > >> Perrin Harkins wrote: >>> Toby Corkindale wrote: >>>> One of the aims of my patch is to avoid the expense of having numerous > >>>> processes produce the same code simultaneously. So on the initial > bunch >>>> of requests, I'll still try and have the code delay all-but-one of > them >>>> from building the page. >>> Presumably this only happens when a new cached page suddenly becomes >>> available and is instantly in high demand. It's not very frequent. In > >>> my opinion, that isn't worth the danger of messing with something as >>> potentially troublesome as locks that block page generation, but I >>> suppose no one is forced to use the locking. >> Good point. >> I'll try and implement the features so they can be enabled separately. > > I will second the "I don't think it is worth it" case. 99% of the time > caching is set at startup and the only time the case you are coding for is > hit is on the first page load if the second request comes in for the same > page before the page build is done from the first hit. Seems like such an > outside case that I would be against all that extra locking an special case > code even if it is an option.
Could this condition be triggered by the user hitting "Reload" or "Go" many times while waiting for the page ? > > > _______________________________________________ > List: [email protected] > Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst > Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/ > > -- Marcello Romani Responsabile IT Ottotecnica s.r.l. http://www.ottotecnica.com _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
