if it helps at all, here was my attempt at a working mod_memcached_cache. i've been meaning to look at it again and do some cleanup/testing/benchmarking/etc, haven't had the chance though.
On Feb 5, 2008 11:17 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 5, 2008, at 7:58 PM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:49:43PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote: > >> On Feb 5, 2008 1:45 PM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Caching experts -- why do memcache and diskcache have seemingly > >>> quite > >>> different caching strategies when it comes to storing the headers ? > >>> E.g. the cache_object_t * is populated with the status/date/etc data > >>> in memcache - but not in disk-cache. Is this work in progress or > >>> subtle design ? > >>> > >>> I am trying to understand (got a working mod_memcached_cache.c* -- > >>> and cannot quite get the right VARY behaviour). > >> > >> If I had to guess I'd say it's because people have actually been > >> working on disk cache, while mem cache has been largely ignored for a > >> while. > > > > Definitely! I remember the original patches tried to create some nice > > abstractions so that more logic would move into mod_cache propery than > > in mod_*_cache, but there turned out to be so many corner cases within > > mod_disk_cache itself - and noone seems to /use/ mod_mem_cache - that > > that fell by the wayside :/ > > Thanks ! That is useful info -- so for now I'll focus on > mod_disk_cache -- and once I got that mapped to mod_memcached -- will > then see if we can abstract that into a cleaner mod_memcache. But > first priority is getting it clean-ish/same-ish relative to the ssl > use of memcached (my usecase is OpenID -- which is 'heavy' on both). > > Dw >
