Chris Withers wrote:
> Jamie Heilman wrote:
> >That depends on the cache replacement policy you need. If you're not
> >tied to LFU then you can just switch to using my MemoryCache product.
> >(With all the various caveats surrounding it, of course, python 2.2,
> >patching Zope, etc.)
> Why Python 2.2? What's the patching you do? What's 'etc'?
2.2 because 2.1 lacks ruthless efficiency. The stock OFS/Cache.py is
insecure, and lacking features I want, thus, I rewrote it and included
patches to adapt the existing managers to the improved API. There is
no third thing.
> Have you submitted a collector issue for all this? If so, I might try and
> work on it some time, although it's not an area I specialise in :-(
> I wonder if anyone on this list could help out?
Yes and no. Its issue 911. "Working on it" would require:
$ cd your-zope-cvs-head
$ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/Cache.py > lib/python/OFS/Cache.py
$ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/cmassoc.diff | patch -p0
$ w3m -dump http://audible.transient.net/zope/cachemanagers.diff | patch -p0
$ # screw with the headers to lib/python/OFS/Cache.py to replace \
ZopeCorp's eyesore of a copyright preamble
$ cvs commit
Of course I'd happily invite peer review of my code.
But none of that will fix that RAM Cache Manager's waste memory.
Again, its just a choice that was made in RCM's design, less
processing overhead w/the potential for more memory usage.
Jamie Heilman http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/
"Most people wouldn't know music if it came up and bit them on the ass."
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -