https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=16579

--- Comment #42 from Jacek Ablewicz <[email protected]> ---
(In reply to Kyle M Hall from comment #41)
> (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #40)
> > I haven't fully tested, but initial read through and applying looks good.
> > This makes it much easier to get memcached functioning with plack and is a
> > good improvement
> 
> I agree! This is a huge improvement and greatly simplifies the setup.
> 
> Jacek, what do you think?

I think generally it's good, and certainly good enough for the 'promotion' from
"In discussion" to "Needs sign-off". I have some doubts re/ certain parts
(mostly about an introduction of that 'namespace' thingy to the Koha caching
system - not entirely sure if it's strictly necessary, and - in case it is - if
doing it in this particular way is the best way possible).

But it's more the matter of opinion / personal preferences (and/or my lack of
understanding why it's needed to be done, and/or why in that way) than any real
concerns.

So far I haven't spotted any regressions in this patch set - looks like there
may be some (= most likely very-very slight) performance hits involved for the
caching system, because of the 'namespaces' introduction, but IMO sorting out
inconsistencies of the memcached config / setups problems in the systemic way
is _much_ more important then that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
_______________________________________________
Koha-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs
website : http://www.koha-community.org/
git : http://git.koha-community.org/
bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/

Reply via email to