https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28436
Fridolin Somers <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] | |m --- Comment #7 from Fridolin Somers <[email protected]> --- (In reply to David Cook from comment #4) > It would be more robust and more readable. > > Or if we wanted to persist the cache beyond the request-level we could use > Koha::Cache, and rely on the staff interface for Libraries and Item Types to > invalidate the cache. > > That would be even better. > > That Koha::Cache could also be placed in the respective modules and have > something like Koha::ItemTypes->get_list() or whatever and have the specific > module handle it's own caching logic. > > Lots of options which would be less hacky and more robust. Indeed. I think we should use Memcached for those datas, they are not often changed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://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/
