Re: Patch for simple walk caching

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:48:47 -0600 (CST), will guaraldi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
> 

You're the boss; the nice thing about what I've done is that Ted can
drop it into his site and get a nice speedup, and it should work with
what he's got installed already.

In the future, I agree that we should refactor everything to use what
you've done. If we can get it to work well, it'll be much more elegant
than what I have done. I still see problems, for example, in getting
the correct comment count with update_static_entry. How do you
determine accurately which files need it? For example, all the
/keyword/*.html files would need to be updated on my blog.

With my changes, you don't need to worry about that, because the
comments plugin still handles counting the comments in cb_prepare.

> 
> > 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.
> 

The difference is that most plugins will still run normally. Only the
few plugins which use fileinfo or pathinfo would need to be changed;
comments and trackback, among others, should remain unaffected.

Peace
Bill Mill
bill.mill at gmail.com


-------------------------------------------------------
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/