[development] node caching

[Steven Jones]

> Maybe it is just too late in the game now.

Yup.

I don't oft post to this list, I'm little scared that I'm going to
look stupid, but I do read most of the threads.

I think the problems that drupal.org has had recently has pushed the
position of 'performance' patches to the fore. I think it has also
allowed some to go in and be discussed post freeze. I don't know if
this is where this node caching has stemmed from, but it seems to be a
definite API change, post freeze.

Robert says that we can already do this, with some effort. Those
making really huge Drupal sites should really be prepared to put some
effort in. Drupal will rarely fall out of my downloads folder and onto
a production server. Save patches like these for D7 and move on.

What was the compelling reason for this to go in post freeze?

On 30/08/2007, Steve Rude <steve at achieveinternet.com> wrote:
> +100 on this.  I believe this to be a worthy cause.  I have been
> feverishly working on the APC module (d.o/project/apc) to get it ready
> for D6 to have an out of the box single server non-db caching option
> (that doesn't require running memcached processes).  I really believe
> that the work that RD has done on the advcache stuff is _GREAT_ since I
> have personally seen it running in the "real world" and would be much
> easier to implement with just being able to turn the module on much the
> same way you can do with the pluggable caching.
>
> Without this functionality,  we will never get to test that code
> sufficiently at the magnitude we need to in order to have a really solid
> caching solution for nodes.
>
> Please, please, please let's consider adding this hook or at least keep
> the patch and make it a configurable option that is turned off by default.
>
> Maybe it is just too late in the game now.
>
> Steve Rude
>
>
> Jeff Eaton wrote:
> > I would actually love a simple hook in the node load code, not unlike
> > custom_url_rewrite(), that allows modules like advcache to work
> > directly as part of the node loading mechanism. That would be three,
> > maybe four lines. I just feel strongly that making a breaking change
> > 'opt out' rather than an 'opt in' this late in the cycle, without a
> > lot of large-scale testing, is dangerous.
> >
>
>


-- 
Regards
Steven Jones