> I decided to do a quick run at writing a mongrel handler to do > the work of the radiant cache - turns out there is zero performance > gain in doing so.
From my understanding (I've yet to verify, but it's a project for a client this weekend anyway) Mongrel is reputably not that great at serving static content anyway, so the biggest performance gain would be a caching model that provided a path to a static HTML output (akin to rails) so that Apache/Nginx/Whatever is fronting mongrel can serve the files directly and bypass anything ruby related. Now to me it seems that it *should* be as simple as having the standard re-write rule you'd have for rails, but instead of looking for /public/(.*).html you'd need to look for /cache/(.*).data, and some additional checks for stuff you know will be in /public (images, scripts, styles, system if you are using capistrano). Am I right? I've not looked at the radiant code for caching but a quick look at the output just now makes me think anyone that wanted to could already be serving up the static content with an intelligent rewrite rule. Glenn _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: [email protected] Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
