Hi Mike -- Ah, it looks like my strategy of "wait for someone else to reply and hope that he sums up my feelings so that I don't have to bother" has worked perfectly. Thanks, Russ!
[IOW: I agree completely with Russ.] I'll be digging into this patch in some detail, but based on what I've seen so far I'm quite happy with it. On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Russell Keith-Magee<[email protected]> wrote: > As is noted in the ticket, one of the reasons that this wasn't done > originally was that the performance boost wasn't seen as being that > considerable. I should point out that that was *quite* some time ago -- pre-open-source, certainly -- and that the template engine has gotten a *lot* more complicated since then (autoescaping, template loaders, app templates... heck, templates didn't even have *comments* back then...) I suspect there'll be a goodly speedup even for the common case, since what caching basically avoids here is the IO requirements of going to the disk. Processors have gotten lots more powerful over the last five years, but disk IO is just as slow. Finally, like Russ, I'm worried about the effect this will have on existing template tags. Auditing code I have lying around, I see at least a half-dozen tags that store state on self. I think it's even figured into some docs and books. So figuring out *some* way of at the very least easing that transition would help the pill go down quite a bit. I think in the end it's worth it regardless, but we need to think a bit more carefully about how to accommodate legacy template tags easily. Jacob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
