On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Perrin Harkins wrote: > > The idea of a volatile cache for > > certain included files would be very useful. > > Would it? Your data is cached by your objects, right? It seems like this > won't actually help you unless you move the caching out of the objects and > into the templates, which probably isn't what you want if you reuse these > objects on multiple templates.
Currently we cache on two levels: 1. raw html generated from the templates 2. serialized objects The logic for caching/fetching both of these is done in our mod_perl handlers (I actually wanted our objects responsible for caching the data, but I lost an argument with a certain Sr. Engineer, but that is another story). The overhead of processing templates is enough that it pays to cache the raw output when we can. That said, the speed improvements that Doug is working on based on Andy's Stash implemented in C, might mean that caching raw output isn't needed. Regarding the need for cached templates, I can easily see a requirement for "personalized" content on certain pages which is the reason I start hungering for a good template caching solution. I am thinking of a page where most of the data is cached for a certain ttl, and an include which contains the calls to personalized data is labeled "volatile" so it is the only template that has anything processed on each request. I don't know if this makes much sense in the context of what y'all talked about at the BOF, so let me know if I am off on an unrelated course... Craig
