hehe .... i did not even think of that as i assumed he is developing some app and wants to use cache and control what and how is cached : )
ps. it could be good idea but then you have to make sure you dont have sessions and other stuff that may make your pages non cacheable. if its static site (only url determines the content) then yeah, reverse proxy would fit much better. art On 19 May 2010 15:25, Adrian Otto <[email protected]> wrote: > In all honesty it might be more simple to use a proxy cache for this. There > are proxy cache modules for most popular web servers, including Apache, > Lighttpd, nginx, etc. Better yet using a caching proxy server like squid or > varnish, or yahoo traffic server work well for higher traffic use cases. > > Using memcached as a web page cache means that you need to write a script > to place data in the cache and fetch it. You won't have the advanced > features of RFC2616, particularly support for conditional requests unless > you implement those in your script. This is a frequently overlooked > efficiency feature that's not trivial to do properly. > > Sun-N-Fun <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I am considering Memcached as a web page cache, so that I can expire/ > >delete certain web pages as content changes on the backend. Is there > >a provision to use Memcached in this way, or is it stricktly for > >populating using the add method in the API? >
