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? > You're 100% correct (on both the crack and the reasoning behind it). Louis had some concern about the potential of two cache reads (not to mention maintaining two types of cache) as well as dealing with the rewriting in more than 1 place initially, but I think at this point it's safe to say that the cure was worse than the disease and we should move this to a cleaner model.
