Re: [REVIEW] PSR-16 Simple Cache

We're already very committed to PSR-16 at work, so I should be able to squeeze that in - will see about getting that done in the morning :-) On Nov 27, 2016 9:56 PM, "Jordi Boggiano" wrote: > On 27/11/2016 19:45, Rasmus Schultz wrote: > >> PSR-6 used the "pool" concept

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-16 Simple Cache

On 27/11/2016 19:45, Rasmus Schultz wrote: PSR-6 used the "pool" concept rather than "server" specifically for this reason; each "pool" is a separate logical namespace independent of any other pool, and two pool objects should not interact. They could both be backed by a file system (separate

Re: [REVIEW] PSR-16 Simple Cache

> PSR-6 used the "pool" concept rather than "server" specifically for this reason; each "pool" is a separate logical namespace independent of any other pool, and two pool objects should not interact. They could both be backed by a file system (separate directories), or by the same SQL database