On May 3, 2006, at 5:56 AM, Davi Arnaut wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006 14:31:06 +0200 (SAST)
"Graham Leggett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, May 3, 2006 1:26 am, Davi Arnaut said:
Then you will end up with code that does not meet the
requirements of
HTTP, and you will have wasted your time.
Yeah, right! How ? Hey, you are using the Monty Python argument
style.
Can you point to even one requirement of HTTP that my_cache_provider
wont meet ?
Yes. Atomic insertions and deletions, the ability to update headers
independantly of body, etc etc, just go back and read the thread.
I can't argue with a zombie, you keep repeating the same
misunderstands.
Seriously, please move this off list to keep the noise out of
people's
inboxes.
Fine, I give up.
For the record, Graham's statements were entirely correct,
Brian's suggested architecture would slow the HTTP cache,
and your responses have been amazingly childish for someone
who has earned zero credibility on this list.
I suggest you stop defending a half-baked design theory and
just go ahead and implement something as a patch. If it works,
that's great. If it slows the HTTP cache, I will veto it myself.
There is, of course, no reason why the HTTP cache has to use
some new middle-layer back-end cache, so maybe you could just
stop arguing about vaporware and simply implement a single
mod_backend_cache that doesn't try to be all things to all people.
Implement it and then convince people on the basis of measurements.
That is a heck of a lot easier than convincing everyone to dump
the current code based on an untested theory.
....Roy
