My understanding is the same. I'm not aware of any other reason the caching class should/could do that. I agree that content rewriting should - and will - be removed from the cache. I submitted this CL simply to un-break functionality, before a goodly refactoring (working on that shortly).
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Brian Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:42 PM, John Hjelmstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does that seem reasonable, at least for fixing the current bug? Clearly > we > > need to clean up this logic in the future anyway. > > May I humbly suggest that doing content rewriting in a cache is bound > to be crack-addled and we should move it elsewhere in the flow? > > I think the original reason for putting it there was to keep a single > cache entry for both original and rewritten content. Are there other > reasons it has to be done in the caching class? >
