Re: Patch for simple walk caching

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Bill Mill wrote:
>
> I see the function itself, but I don't see any script which calls the 
> function.

Oh, yeah.  I don't think anything acutally uses update_static_entry yet. 
The comments plugin was supposed to, but I never got that far.


> and I'm saying that my filelist cache can possibly achieve similar 
> functionality, without requiring alterations, to most plugins that exist 
> already. If it works, and it's simpler, that's good right?

Well, my thinking is that you're adding something we already have most of 
the plumbing for, but it's slightly different.  The static rendering will 
definitely result in the fastest speed improvement times since it's not 
doing any rendering at all.

I'd rather re-factor what we have than patch the core with what you're 
doing now.


> Well, first off, it's not a plugin - it's a modification to pyblosxom 
> itself. I appreciate that you did some work on it already; I just think 
> that my change might make plugin development simpler - you wouldn't have 
> to worry about people who use static rendering unless your plugin used 
> the cb_filelist or cb_pathinfo callbacks.

How many plugins update or create new entries?  You were talking about 
having those sorts of plugins "invalidate the cache" using a function 
call.  I don't see much difference in changing plugins to invalidate the 
cache vs. changing plugins to re-render the static pages in question.

/will


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/