Tom, First thoughts: why not Zend or Pear cache libraries? > > > http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.cache.theory.html#zend.cache.factory > http://pear.php.net/package/Cache_Lite > http://pear.php.net/package/Cache > > The pear packages are looking for maintainers - perhaps you could roll > your work into that?
Thanks, these were the sorts of libraries I wanted to check for reference. > So, what is your goal with this caching library? FE caching can be > fixed with more boxes or a squid layer. Datasources can be harder to > cache but will be much more valuable when you try to scale. My experience is that the broader the cache the less effective. Caches can make sites appear un-responsive or oddly buggy to users. I've done reverse proxy caching with Squid, but it's painting with an extremely large brush. You can't target *part* of a response for caching. I also don't believe in "more boxes" all the time. While an important part of scaling is adding more resources, it's also important not to waste the resources you have. For example, you can cache the datasource.... or the result set. If the two have the same effectiveness, then I'd rather cache the result set because that extends the per-box capacity. If my application is failing to meet performance expectations, I like to have on hand some caching tools to see if I can rescue it. And that would be the purpose of this library. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick May 135 Oak Street New York, NY 11222 +1 (347) 232-5208 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hexane.org
_______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
