caching includes parse tree

Any thought into parsing the results of the includes filter (offsets, etc.). In our environment, parsing the includes files is a huge performance hit. We are willing to help in any way.

Re: caching includes parse tree

* Brian Akins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any thought into parsing the results of the includes filter (offsets, etc.). In our environment, parsing the includes files is a huge performance hit. Just some thoughts from top of my head: I'd say, if we do, only with the new code. The old one is

Re: caching includes parse tree

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 08:54:50PM +0100, André Malo wrote: * Brian Akins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any thought into parsing the results of the includes filter (offsets, etc.). In our environment, parsing the includes files is a huge performance hit. Just some thoughts from top of my

Re: caching includes parse tree

Glenn wrote: For files where server-side includes are used for page fragment reuse rather than complicated server-side conditional processing, this could be an easy win, and a bit more flexible than the XBitHack. In our environment, we have several includes on a page, only one of which is

Re: caching includes parse tree

Brian Akins wrote: Any thought into parsing the results of the includes filter (offsets, etc.). In our environment, parsing the includes files is a huge performance hit. We are willing to help in any way. Hey Brian, it has been discussed before, and the two approaches is what I recall we