Пн. 13 янв. 2014 16:12:29 пользователь Pavel Astakhov ([email protected])
написал:
> From: Dmitriy Sintsov <questpc <at> rambler.ru>
> Subject: Re: Is Foxway a right way?
> <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=1389610306.562859.4565.53906%40mail.rambler.ru>
> Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical
> <http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical>
> Date: 2014-01-13 10:51:46 GMT (29 minutes ago)
> I implemented something similar before Scribunto was stable enough and
> deployed
My idea is different
I know. But the interpreting probably is too slow for huge-load wikis.
> ... many people say that Lua ... better language in general ...
This is a very controversial statement.
I use the PHP interpreter because mediawiki written in PHP and PHP is
more powerful.
Lua VM is not stack-based, it's RAM usage can be easily controlled. The people
behind Scribunto (Tim Starling and Victor Vasiliev) are better programmers than
me, if they choosed Lua then it's really worth something. Also Lua is used as
scripting language in huge number of various applications (games, scientific)
while PHP is not. Lua VM also was a bit faster than both PHP and Python some
year ago.
> From: Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo <at> gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Is Foxway a right way?
> <http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=CAE0Q5ovAtE%5f5WDgXr6rYUwkCqt%5fVNawuiMjWP9i%5fLbrXU5CAKA%40mail.gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical
> <http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical>
> Date: 2014-01-13 09:37:46 GMT (43 minutes ago)
> How does this compare to the PECL runkit extension? Also have you
> benchmarked it against Scribunto? Because Scribunto does kind of the same
> exact thing except just with a different programming language (and
> Scribunto uses a native interpreter rather than one written in PHP).
I do not propose to improve what is already there.
I'm sure there is nothing faster LUA and one is the best choice.
Why is there a need for LUA? Because building html page from wiki markup
without LUA takes a long time.
Why? Because wiki page use a lot of function calls that are working
together very slowly.
So let it be. Can not we just all be cached? No, pages change frequently
and cache is not dimensionless.
I guess they have enough of logged-in non-anonymous users so not everything and
not always may be cached. Also I remember bad things could happen when source
of template changes and lots of pages has to be regenerated, Scribunto probably
reduced CPU load a lot in such case. Do not forget they are not small / medium
size wiki but a really huge wiki.
I propose to discuss the new principle of building html pages from the
wiki markup.
1. Need to separate Wiki markup from the functions, just as html
separated from PHP code. In this case, need to cache only the result of
these functions.
2. Let functions to work quickly. I checked, it is possible.
I'm not trying to build a page quickly, I'm trying to do this very
effectively. That is my idea.
Efficient use of resources gives bigger win in speed.
Maybe you could apply your extension to Goole Summer of Code, or to another
similar experimental project. They are announcing such projects regularly.
Dmitriy
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
