I don't see any. It's "good enough" for most cases, I believe.
The unmentioned alternative, of course, is memcached. It would
take minimal changes to the code, probably a single line in
environment.rb , since ResponseCache piggy-backs on the Rails caching
mechanism. However, not everyone could run memcached.
Actually, ResponseCache doesn't piggy-back on the rails caching
mechanism - at least not in the sense where it would be simple to swap
in one of the other rails caching backends. However, I think this might
actually be the reason why ResponseCache manages to perform so well -
all the abstraction in the rails caching creates a big performance hit.
Writing an extension that uses memcache rather than the filesystem would
require replacing the entire ResponseCache class.
Dan.
_______________________________________________
Radiant mailing list
Post: Radiant@lists.radiantcms.org
Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
